Bernie Sanders Thread

#376
#376
Kingston Vol said:
Stealing is a "propaganda-ish" word, isn't it?

But no, it's pretty simple.

The raise in taxes would pay, in this scenario, for Bernie's 5 million new infrastructure jobs - something both left and right would agree needs major repair. Giving 5 million new people good paying jobs would allow them to buy more goods - thus the middle class and the economy would be stronger.

You also give people who are more likely to spend more buying power by increasing the EIC.
Click to expand...

The EIC needs to be abolished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#378
#378
Kingston Vol said:
Stealing is a "propaganda-ish" word, isn't it?

But no, it's pretty simple.

The raise in taxes would pay, in this scenario, for Bernie's 5 million new infrastructure jobs - something both left and right would agree needs major repair. Giving 5 million new people good paying jobs would allow them to buy more goods - thus the middle class and the economy would be stronger.

You also give people who are more likely to spend more buying power by increasing the EIC.
Click to expand...

Taking money out group A's hands and putting it into group B's is economically stupid on its face. You are not recognizing the economic activity that group A would have provided that will be lost. There is no economic expansion under this scenario. Besides, Obama and the dems already got a stimulus. Where is it? Shovel ready with Bernie will be different this time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#380
#380
Ernest T. Vol said:
Taking money out group A's hands and putting it into group B's is economically stupid on its face. You are not recognizing the economic activity that group A would have provided that will be lost. There is no economic expansion under this scenario. Besides, Obama and the dems already got a stimulus. Where is it? Shovel ready with Bernie will be different this time?
Click to expand...

What if Group A has all of their money in an offshore account untouched? In that case, Group B would cause more economic activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#382
#382
Kingston Vol said:
What if Group A has all of their money in an offshore account untouched? In that case, Group B would cause more economic activity.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why there are any offshore accounts of any kind in the first place (both corporate and individual). When you propose more taxation, you create even more incentive for offshore activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#383
#383
Ernest T. Vol said:
Ask yourself why there are any offshore accounts of any kind in the first place (both corporate and individual). When you propose more taxation, you create even more incentive for offshore activity.
Click to expand...

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday introduced a bill to stop profitable corporations from sheltering income overseas in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The legislation also would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs and factories overseas.

Sanders spoke at a Capitol news conference in front of a photo of the notorious Ugland House, the building in the Cayman Islands that is the registered address of more than 18,000 companies. The building has become the symbol of all that is wrong with offshore tax havens.

“At a time when we have a $18.2 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit; at a time when many of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, it is past time for corporate America to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can create the millions of jobs this country needs,” Sanders said.

Eighty-three of the Fortune 100 companies in the United States have used offshore tax havens to lower their taxes, according to the most recent Government Accountability Office study.

Sanders’ bill and a companion measure introduced today in the House by Rep. Jan Schakowsky would yield more than $590 billion in revenue over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sanders announced the bill introduction during a news conference with groups releasing a report on how the tax shelter loophole has harmed many small businesses.

The bill also would remove tax code incentives for U.S. companies to ship American jobs and factories abroad – tax breaks which have contributed to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs and the closure of some 60,000 American factories since 2000. “That has also got to change,” Sanders said.

Under current law, U.S. corporations are allowed to defer or delay U.S. income taxes on overseas profits until the money is brought back into the United States. U.S. corporations are also provided foreign tax credits to offset the amount of taxes paid to other countries. Under the legislation, corporations would pay U.S. taxes on their offshore profits as they are earned. The legislation would take away the tax incentives for corporations to move jobs offshore or to shift profits offshore because the U.S. would tax their profits no matter where they are generated.

Sanders was joined at the news conference by Bob McIntyre, executive director of Citizens for Tax Justice, Jamie Woo of Public Interest Research Group, and Bryan McGannon, policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council.
Click to expand...

Offshore Tax Havens - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
 
#385
#385
Kingston Vol said:
What if Group A has all of their money in an offshore account untouched? In that case, Group B would cause more economic activity.
Click to expand...

Then you are overlooking the obvious my friend. Don't penalize oversees investments, make it advantageous to bring that money home by changing the tax code.

Reward risk not penalize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#387
#387
hog88 said:
Then you are overlooking the obvious my friend. Don't penalize oversees investments, make it advantageous to bring that money home by changing the tax code.

Reward risk not penalize it.
Click to expand...

So, you're pro-business even if it means being anti-America?

They need to pay their fair share. It's bull**** that we let them get away with this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#389
#389
Kingston Vol said:
So, you're pro-business even if it means being anti-America?

They need to pay their fair share. It's bull**** that we let them get away with this stuff.
Click to expand...

Business doesn't pay taxes, it's just passed along to the consumer at some point.

I'm all for eliminating federal corporate taxes, that would do more for investment and growth in this country than anything else the government could possibly do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#390
#390
Ernest T. Vol said:
Exactamundo. Would also curb this stock buyback craziness that is the rage now.
Click to expand...

What's amazing is that almost no one is paying attention to this. To me it's a sure sign of lack of confidence, instead of investing in growth they are buying up their own stock. There is a cliff up ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#392
#392
hog88 said:
What's amazing is that almost no one is paying attention to this. To me it's a sure sign of lack of confidence, instead of investing in growth they are buying up their own stock. There is a cliff up ahead.
Click to expand...

I believe its largely driven by taxation and record low rates. Corporations have to return value to the owners (shareholders) somehow. Consider, dividends are taxed twice (once at the corp level and again at the shareholder level) at increased Obama rates which is killer. Throw in the states that might tax as well. When a corp does a buyback, they actually go into the stock market to do it, boosting the per share price. The shareholders keeping their stock then have realized economic income without recognizing a taxable event. Corps are actually borrowing the money to buy their own stock because rates are so low while sitting on tons of cash (a lot held in overseas accounts).
 
Last edited:
#393
#393
Ernest T. Vol said:
I believe its largely driven by taxation and record low rates. Corporations have to return value to the owners (shareholders) somehow. Consider, dividends are taxed twice (once at the corp level and again at the shareholder level) at increased Obama rates which is killer. Throw in the states that might tax as well. When a corp does a buyback, they actually go into the stock market to do it, boosting the per share price. The shareholders keeping their stock then have realized economic income without recognizing a taxable event. Corps are actually borrowing the money to buy their own stock because rates are so low while sitting on tons of cash (a lot held in overseas accounts).
Click to expand...

Yes, but I see this as a sign of economic uncertainty. I don't have a problem with a company buying back stock, it's a smart move in most cases. I just don't see the reinvestment.
 
#395
#395
hog88 said:
Yes, but I see this as a sign of economic uncertainty. I don't have a problem with a company buying back stock, it's a smart move in most cases. I just don't see the reinvestment.
Click to expand...

Yea, I agree about the uncertainty. I just think the uncertainty is largely government driven. Corps are trying to survive the current anti-business, anti-capitalist, over regulated environment. They are not in a hurry to expand, hire, etc. without some pro-business certainty. They don't trust the current libs even though some cozy up to them (keeping friends and enemies closer, you know)
 
#396
#396
Ernest T. Vol said:
Yea, I agree about the uncertainty. I just think the uncertainty is largely government driven. Corps are trying to survive the current anti-business, anti-capitalist, over regulated environment. They are not in a hurry to expand, hire, etc. without some pro-business certainty. They don't trust the current libs even though some cozy up to them (keeping friends and enemies closer, you know)
Click to expand...

I think most are in a holding pattern until November 2016. Waiting to see who the next POTUS will be. If it's Hillary, welcome to at least another 4 years of negative to slow growth.
 
#398
#398
hog88 said:
I think most are in a holding pattern until November 2016. Waiting to see who the next POTUS will be. If it's Hillary, welcome to at least another 4 years of negative to slow growth.
Click to expand...

That's why a GOP nominee will win in 2016.
 
#399
#399
Kingston Vol said:
Stealing is a "propaganda-ish" word, isn't it?

But no, it's pretty simple.

The raise in taxes would pay, in this scenario, for Bernie's 5 million new infrastructure jobs - something both left and right would agree needs major repair. Giving 5 million new people good paying jobs would allow them to buy more goods - thus the middle class and the economy would be stronger.

You also give people who are more likely to spend more buying power by increasing the EIC.
Click to expand...

You are trying to reach a pot of money held offshore. The gains on these funds must be reported and taxed. Since you are advocating taxation as a way to get to the principle, then you must tax at a greater than 100% rate to get to said principle. That is theft.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top