quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
DS, I think you'd like Scott Adams' (Dilbert cartoonist) idea for fixing the national debt/deficit.
Freeze spending at current levels, and let inflation fix the problem.
Kinda elegant when you think about it. Of course, that means SSI decreases since the same amount of money has to pay for more people. Medicare age would have to go up, etc.
But it would certainly chip away at military spending...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Here's a thought.
How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?"
They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements.
Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own.

Wow. So, what you are saying now, is that you made your money, if you don't spend it before you die, you have no say over what happens to your property. Nice.

If you look closely, you'll see that those "Dollars" in your hand are the property of the US Treasury and you're just the temporary bearer.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.

How many US jobs has the average person created?

Assuming average income and wealth? Something like 2 from economic activity alone.
You see when people spend money on goods and services they create demand for those goods and services which is supplied by other people working at jobs.

Well, that means that even the 1% will get their Bush Tax Cut extensions.

I never said anything about the Bush era tax cuts.
My opinion is that we should: end the Bush tax cuts, immediately end the cap gains tax and treat all capital gains as simple income, return to a top marginal rate of 40%, end all tax breaks for moving jobs or capital overseas, actually enforce our own trade laws and rigorously pursue unfair trade complaints at the WTO, gradually cut defence spending by at least 60%, institute Medicare for all and return the inheritance tax to the pre Reagan standard.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.

How many US jobs has the average person created?

How many jobs have the "rich" sliced out of their companies to save money only to relay the "savings" to the shareholders and management.
Just in the last four years 9 million and more jobs were cut. How many average people had a hand in that?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Here's a thought.

How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?"

They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements.

Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.

How many US jobs has the average person created?

How many jobs have the "rich" sliced out of their companies to save money only to relay the "savings" to the shareholders and management.
Just in the last four years 9 million and more jobs were cut. How many average people had a hand in that?

Why would you post a response to my question without answering my question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.

How many US jobs has the average person created?

How many jobs have the "rich" sliced out of their companies to save money only to relay the "savings" to the shareholders and management.
Just in the last four years 9 million and more jobs were cut. How many average people had a hand in that?

Why would you post a response to my question without answering my question?

Because she's attacking the premise of your question, just as you attacked a premise with your question.
Want an answer? This is 2009 data, but will give you an idea--the "average" person creates quite a few jobs, if you're adding us up and dividing by jobs.
Consumers, the average person, are 2/3 of the economy--more than government, business, and net exports combined.
Not to mention that all of us who are self-employed are creating our jobs every day. Further, some businesses, like mine, are often about helping others to grow their own businesses.
So how many jobs does the average person create? Most of them.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Who is getting tax breaks for moving jobs and capital overseas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Look, the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy were to stimulate job creation.
Now, during the Bush Era, those jobs were created over seas, the US saw record unemployment and no jobs created.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT DID NOT WORK.
Just made the wealthy fatter on extra cash.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Who is getting tax breaks for moving jobs and capital overseas?

Any manufacturing business that does so and moves its capital equipment as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092806143.html

quote:

The bill under consideration Tuesday would have ended tax deductions for expenses incurred when companies shutter U.S. operations and shift the work abroad; imposed a new tax on products once made in the United States but now manufactured by foreign workers; and offered employers a two-year payroll tax holiday on jobs repatriated from overseas.

quote:

SEC. 201. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION, LOSS, OR CREDIT FOR CERTAIN ITEMS INCURRED IN MOVING AMERICAN JOBS OFFSHORE.


(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:

SEC. 280I. EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN MOVING AMERICAN JOBS OFFSHORE.

(a) Disallowance- No deduction, loss, or credit shall be allowed under this title for any taxable year for any disallowed amount.
(b) Disallowed Amount- For purposes of this section--

(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘disallowed amount’ means any amount which is paid or incurred during the taxable year which is properly allocable to an American jobs offshoring transaction.
(2) LOSSES- Such term shall include any loss from any sale, exchange, abandonment, or other disposition of property in connection with an American jobs offshoring transaction.
(3) EXCEPTION FOR COSTS RELATED TO DISPLACED WORKERS- Such term shall not include any amount paid or incurred for assistance to employees within the United States whose jobs are being lost as part of an American jobs offshoring transaction, including any severance pay, outplacement services, or employee retraining.

(c) American Jobs Offshoring Transaction- For purposes of this section--

(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘American jobs offshoring transaction’ means any transaction (or series of transactions) in which the taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business (or line of business) within the United States in connection with the start up or expansion of such trade or business (or such line of business) by the taxpayer outside of the United States.
(2) EXCEPTION- A transaction (or series of transactions) shall not be treated as an American jobs offshoring transaction if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such transaction (or series of transactions) will not result in the loss of employment for employees of the taxpayer within the United States.

(d) Aggregation Rule- All employers treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as a single taxpayer for purposes of this section, except that section 1563(b)(2)(C) shall be disregarded in applying section 1563 for purposes of section 52.
(e) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations necessary to prevent the avoidance of such purposes and the application of this section in the case of mergers, acquisitions, and dispositions and in the case of contract employees.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for 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 item:
Sec. 280I. Expenditures incurred in moving American jobs offshore.’.
(c) Effective Dates-

(1) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by this section shall apply to transactions occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING TRANSACTIONS- The amendments made by this section shall not apply to transactions occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate that on or before such date the taxpayer publicly identified the transaction in sufficient detail that the nature and scope of the transaction could be identified.



Basically, any expenses that are incurred in reducing their US workforce while establishing or increasing off-shore work to replace that productivity. If the off-shore work establishment or expansion does not reduce the US workforce.

While, technically, they are getting a tax break for offshoring work, it's only because business can exempt expenses from their taxes, and some of the expenses could be used in off-shoring. The rhetoric paints the picture that Republicans have given out tax breaks specifically if business off-shores.

What the bill you linked to actually does, is carve out a little bit of a carve out (or adds a "carve-in" to a carve-out).

Did you happen to see the part where an extra tax would be levied on goods of foreign-owned off-shore goods imported into the US? Oh, and the Democrat bill also exempted gas and oil from that tax.

You do realize, do you not, that, according to the bill, a company could increase establish off-shore business in the years prior or after the tax year the US jobs are reduced, right?


_____________________________

What I support:



• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to DomKen)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Who is getting tax breaks for moving jobs and capital overseas?

Any manufacturing business that does so and moves its capital equipment as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092806143.html

Wow. The "damning" evidence is so prevalent! How could we not have seen it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.

How many US jobs has the average person created?

How many jobs have the "rich" sliced out of their companies to save money only to relay the "savings" to the shareholders and management.
Just in the last four years 9 million and more jobs were cut. How many average people had a hand in that?

Why would you post a response to my question without answering my question?

Because she's attacking the premise of your question, just as you attacked a premise with your question.

Want an answer? This is 2009 data, but will give you an idea--the "average" person creates quite a few jobs, if you're adding us up and dividing by jobs.

2. How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau and Intl. Trade Admin.; Advocacy-funded research by Kathryn Kobe, 2007 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299.pdf) and CHI Research, 2003 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225.pdf);U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3. How many small businesses are there?

In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.

Source:Office of Advocacy estimates based on data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, and trends from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics.

4. What is small firms’ share of employment?

Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Of 120.6 million nonfarm private sector workers in 2007, small firms employed 59.9 million and large firms employed 60.7 million.About half of small firm employment is in second-stage companies (10-99 employees), and half is in firms that are 15 years or older. Small firms’ share of employment in rural areas is slightly higher that in urban areas; their share of part-time workers (22 percent) is similar to large firms’ share (19 percent). Small firms’ employment share remains steady since some small firms grow into large firms over time.

Source:U.S.Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau: Statistics of U.S. Businesses, Current Population Survey and Business Dynamics Statistics; and the Edward Lowe Foundation (http://youreconomy.org).

5. What share of net new jobs do small businesses create?

Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.
Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represents about 5-6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics; Advocacy-funded research by Zoltan Acs, William Parsons and Spencer Tracy, 2008 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs328.pdf)


But here's another answer to your question--I've run businesses for years, and I've never employed anyone in the sense of an employee. But my projects create work and income for others. Building my house employed an architect, plumber, electrician, general contractor, excavator, and the people they employ. Launching my website uses a variety of services, as do my free lance enterprises. My car, dining out, etc. etc. etc. all contribute to people's jobs.

Consumers, the average person, are 2/3 of the economy--more than government, business, and net exports combined.

Not to mention that all of us who are self-employed are creating our jobs every day. Further, some businesses, like mine, are often about helping others to grow their own businesses.

So how many jobs does the average person create? Most of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Hi DS,
Somewhat irrelevant to the subject at hand, I know, but do you think you could change your avatar? It's just that you're obviously such a happy-go-lucky sort of chap, whereas your avatar makes you look a bit bad-tempered. No offence.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

So here is my "1099 plan," for your consideration.
The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs.
I know the Con argument is that all rich people create jobs, they come out with the rainbows that come out of the rich people's arses when they poop. But some folks are skeptical, and it would be easy enough to prove.
Corporations and other entities report financial information to their owners and the IRS via the 1099 form. Right now it is Income and certain deductible expenses. It would be easy enough to add a line for "expenses related to employing US taxpayers."
Then you figure out a reasonable ratio, and give the rich a tax break based on what they pay towards employing people in the US. It wouldn't be dollar for dollar, obviously, but you could give a 20% break easily enough with the money currently going towards the Bush tax cuts.
Plus it would force the Cons to put their money where their mouths are. Rich folks who support US jobs will get a tax cut, and rich folks who play mortgage games or "invest" (aka gamble) in derivatives will not.
Oh, and did anyone notice that this will change the "cutting US jobs is good," mantra for our corporations? After all, cutting the tax break for your owners won't look so hot. Heck, opening up a new plant in the US would start to look good for corporations.