U.S. Debt discussion

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really? Perhaps you can tell me how to get these companies to hire. The fact that they would rather just sit on capital tells you just how bad the business climate is.

They could be sitting on it until a Republican sits in the White House so some lame brain like goodhair Perry can take the credit when the money flows again. Of course the jobs that will be created will be low paying, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the poor are just thankful to have any job.

I skipped a few pages so this may already have been mentioned.

[macker]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It's progressive in the US, but not as progressive as ours, so the top bracket pays more rate-wise than the lower brackets. But when you factor in the various exemptions, the lower end pays no taxes at all. So, I fail to see the validity of the argument. Because someone making $250K can afford to send their kids to university is not a reason to jack the tax rate for them (and them alone).

P.S. To flip it on its head, a whole bunch of banks, and Fannie and Freddie thought the non-tax-paying bottom end should get mortgages to buy houses, which is a large reason for the current mess. Why not say, if you can own a house, you can pay taxes? Same logic.

Likely been mentioned and somewhat old news but funny how General Electric avoids paying taxes. I know this is on a corporate level but they have the system figured out pretty well! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by macker

Likely been mentioned and somewhat old news but funny how General Electric avoids paying taxes. I know this is on a corporate level but they have the system figured out pretty well! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

The system which the oil companies in the 20's created and GE perfected works something like this:

1. Pay tax on your profits to foreign government ie. Saudi Arabia

2. Care less about how much you're taxed by foreign government because

3. Corporation obtains a dollar for dollar tax credit on taxes paid to foreign gov't on US return.

As you all prob. know a tax credit is more valuable than a deduction since it is dollar for dollar rather than 35 cents on the dollar deduction (35% corporate tax rate).

Essentially the US tax payer foots the entire tax bill to foreign govts like China and Saudi Arabia on corporate profits made outside the US.

if you watch the clip and the GE press release that "...GE is scrupulous with its tax obligations in all tax jurisdictions..." is spot on. They couldn't care less how much tax is paid oversees because not only do they pay no US federal tax but receive billions in tax benefits. It is perfectly legal.

I believe when they first (or was it GM?) went to China, the Chinese were shocked that they asked for a corporate income tax when none existed because it would help with the bottom line on the US return.

Corporate welfare at its finest....and don't even get me started on Big Oil.

I think the Obama administration is looking at a possible tax reduction on the corporate rate at least temporarily to repatriate all the multinational cash and infuse gov't revenue.

I know Microsoft is lobbying very hard for a lower tax rate or holiday to bring overseas cash back to the US.

Source: Daniel Yergin's The Prize .

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

With the blue dogs slowly leaving the Democrat Party, I would almost certainly not vote for that merry band of morons.

If you have a choice between ######s and incompetent fools, who do you pick?

The blue dogs like Senator Blanche Lincoln were not fiscally conservative enough in this election cycle and were voted out for right wing candidates versus center right (which the Blue Dogs are). She was against the public option and voted for the water downed healthcare bill.

They aren't leaving but any center that existed is slowly being decimated in favor of extremes on both sides.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They could be sitting on it until a Republican sits in the White House so some lame brain like goodhair Perry can take the credit when the money flows again. Of course the jobs that will be created will be low paying, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the poor are just thankful to have any job.

I skipped a few pages so this may already have been mentioned.

Yup it is very possible that they will sit on their money until they have a different President to deal with.

As for the jobs eventually created being low paid I think that is a given until America gets close to full employment again.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Holy over generalization.

They want to deregulate everything? Really?

The EPA is a HUGE reason the US is a very unfavourable business climate right now. But nobody is saying put away with it completely. You just need to use some common sense with your approach.

Actually Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachman have both called for the EPA to be abolished, McCain and the GOP's 'less extreme' position is that it be 'merged' into the department of Energy and its funding cut to minimal amounts, thus effectively killing it.

All the while both Canada and Germany continue to do better economically despite having generally tougher regulations than the US, or, God forbid, no oil at all to explore for!.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I know this, I'm only repeating what Jan Hatzuis said.



It seems worrisome to me only because they obviously can't lower interest rates any further and if (when?) they decide to do another QE, doesn't this pose the risk of causing a crazy amount if inflation? On top of that, after being downgraded to AA+ one can only assume less foreign investments which seems to me like it's putting the US into a vicious loop.

This is only based on what little I know, but I'm doing my best to try and learn how this works.

Well theoretically it could cause more inflation, but when your economy is deflating that would be somewhat welcome. From goldbugs over the past few years one of their prime arguments was that the government couldn't get the money out of the system and by printing so much money it would cause inflation to skyrocket. That hasn't happened at all, and while a third round might be different its hard to say.

Another thing to consider is how the QE takes place. This a relatively broad category that would include programs like TARP as well as things like bond purchase programs. As a result the impacts (both intended and unintended) will vary somewhat.

[SeeBass]

One of the most crazy tax laws is the ability that a company can write off moving to another country as a business expense.

Only lobbying can make a loophole like this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They could be sitting on it until a Republican sits in the White House so some lame brain like goodhair Perry can take the credit when the money flows again. Of course the jobs that will be created will be low paying, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the poor are just thankful to have any job.

I skipped a few pages so this may already have been mentioned.

You can't be stupid enough to actually believe that.

The fact that companies are sitting on trillions in cash has nothing to do with who is in the Whitehouse, and everything to do with the policies that the government has put in place.

How exactly do the Republicans get these companies to not spend their trillions? Payoffs? Promises?

Or are you just throwing stupid ideas around again?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

The blue dogs like Senator Blanche Lincoln were not fiscally conservative enough in this election cycle and were voted out for right wing candidates versus center right (which the Blue Dogs are). She was against the public option and voted for the water downed healthcare bill.

They aren't leaving but any center that existed is slowly being decimated in favor of extremes on both sides.

As a whole the blue dogs tend to be more fiscally conservative than their fellow Democrats or any of the Republicans.

Of course, that may have changed in the past few years.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachman have both called for the EPA to be abolished, McCain and the GOP's 'less extreme' position is that it be 'merged' into the department of Energy and its funding cut to minimal amounts, thus effectively killing it.

All the while both Canada and Germany continue to do better economically despite having generally tougher regulations than the US, or, God forbid, no oil at all to explore for!.

Ron Paul also called for the EPA to be disbanded.

When the Department of the Interior is tasked to look after drilling permits in the Gulf, than they should be tasked to do the same thing in Alaska. Instead the EPA has been increasingly given power to shutdown drilling sites, and impose ridiculous regulations, like air permits which were obviously stupid considering the drilling site was 70 miles from the nearest town. The result is far too much red tape for companies to deal with, so they go elsewhere.

Does Canada have more regulations? The American people have been trying to pin us as a socialist paradise for years, but I don't think its true. We just have more common sense, and we don't create another Department of 'X' whenever something goes wrong.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ron Paul also called for the EPA to be disbanded.

When the Department of the Interior is tasked to look after drilling permits in the Gulf, than they should be tasked to do the same thing in Alaska. Instead the EPA has been increasingly given power to shutdown drilling sites, and impose ridiculous regulations, like air permits which were obviously stupid considering the drilling site was 70 miles from the nearest town. The result is far too much red tape for companies to deal with, so they go elsewhere.

Does Canada have more regulations? The American people have been trying to pin us as a socialist paradise for years, but I don't think its true. We just have more common sense, and we don't create another Department of 'X' whenever something goes wrong.

We have an outright ban on exploration in the pacific for no reason at all really, so far a ban on exporting oil out of the Georgia Straight or Rupert despite pleas to put in a terminal, the trouble is energy production is a producer of money, rather than jobs in most places (Shale being the exception to this)

But yes our enviromental laws are equal to if not stronger than the US, this does nothing to stop economic growth, if anything its the opposite, it stimulates high paying tertiary jobs to service the industries.

The US is constantly looking backwards to its 'glory days' when it made heavy industrial products in the Rust Belt, that work has gone to the third world and will never come back, not due to the EPA but due to the cost of labor, they have to look to Germany where highly educated wll paid union workers make up for their wages with better product from highly computorized factories with a high output and little waste.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Does Canada have more regulations?

Yes.

[mikey_the_redneck]

QE3 is coming, according to Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...i-says-1-.html

"The U.S. Federal Reserve will extend its program to purchase the nation’s debts and stabilize long-term interest rates after Standard & Poor’s downgraded its credit rating, according to an adviser to China’s central bank.
The Fed will roll out quantitative easing 3, a tactic to purchase treasuries, Li Daokui, an adviser to the People’s Bank of China, wrote in his microblog weibo.com."

Looks like they are going to try and inflate their way out of debt????

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ron Paul also called for the EPA to be disbanded.

When the Department of the Interior is tasked to look after drilling permits in the Gulf, than they should be tasked to do the same thing in Alaska. Instead the EPA has been increasingly given power to shutdown drilling sites, and impose ridiculous regulations, like air permits which were obviously stupid considering the drilling site was 70 miles from the nearest town. The result is far too much red tape for companies to deal with, so they go elsewhere.

Does Canada have more regulations? The American people have been trying to pin us as a socialist paradise for years, but I don't think its true. We just have more common sense, and we don't create another Department of 'X' whenever something goes wrong.

It is hard to say which country has more regulation. They may have more regs in one area and less in another.

What I know Canada is a center left country because of Quebec just like the US is center right because of the south.

There is way too much democracy and litigation.

Ring road would never happen as quickly as it did in Seattle because of the amount of litigation or referenda would set it back years longer from starting.

The downtown viaduct from the 50's is on the verge of collapse from the '01 earthquake. Plebesites have been held, mayors and governors elected with a plan yet there is another referendum whether to do a tunnel versus above ground.

There is another referendum in August because people who didn't liked the result of the last referendum demanded another one hoping for a different result.

It goes on and on.

Vancouver Olympics have come and gone. This could never have happened in Seattle in that timeframe with all the infrastructure created like the Canada Line, it would have been in Environmental Impact stage still.

Maybe too much democracy and too many lawyers...

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

QE3 is coming, according to Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...i-says-1-.html

"The U.S. Federal Reserve will extend its program to purchase the nation’s debts and stabilize long-term interest rates after Standard & Poor’s downgraded its credit rating, according to an adviser to China’s central bank.
The Fed will roll out quantitative easing 3, a tactic to purchase treasuries, Li Daokui, an adviser to the People’s Bank of China, wrote in his microblog weibo.com."

Looks like they are going to try and inflate their way out of debt????

They have no choice at this stage. If the goverment doesn't try to stabalise the economy it crashes and tax revenues fall spurring further debt, this is what an oversimplification of the deficit missed, that an attempt to cap goverment spending would and now looks like it has, increase goverment spending, just on debt service rather than on anything usefull.

Typical example of people seeing the problem but missing the answer by miles.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

It is hard to say which country has more regulation. They may have more regs in one area and less in another.

What I know Canada is a center left country because of Quebec just like the US is center right because of the south.

There is way too much democracy and litigation.

Ring road would never happen as quickly as it did in Seattle because of the amount of litigation or referenda would set it back years longer from starting.

The downtown viaduct from the 50's is on the verge of collapse from the '01 earthquake. Plebesites have been held, mayors and governors elected with a plan yet there is another referendum whether to do a tunnel versus above ground.

There is another referendum in August because people who didn't liked the result of the last referendum demanded another one hoping for a different result.

It goes on and on.

Vancouver Olympics have come and gone. This could never have happened in Seattle in that timeframe with all the infrastructure created like the Canada Line, it would have been in Environmental Impact stage still.

Maybe too much democracy and too many lawyers...

I hate trying to drive in Seattle, its a city that needs a commuter train service desperatly.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You can't be stupid enough to actually believe that.

The fact that companies are sitting on trillions in cash has nothing to do with who is in the Whitehouse, and everything to do with the policies that the government has put in place.

How exactly do the Republicans get these companies to not spend their trillions? Payoffs? Promises?

Or are you just throwing stupid ideas around again?

You seem to be the one who is throwing a lot of stupid ideas out there. I think big business is quite capable of trying to control the political future by holding back investment.

[afc wimbledon]

How exactly do the Republicans get these companies to not spend their trillions? Payoffs? Promises?

One would assume under this hypothosis it isn't the Republicans getting anyone to do anything, it is big business telling the Republicans what to say, which bearing in mind the Tea Party is almost intirely the invention of one multi millionaire in the energy sector, is not that far fetched.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

S&P made a $2 Trillion dollar error in their calculations on deciding to downgrade the US. Apparently they went ahead with the downgrade anyway just a few minutes ago...

Yep.....the same S&P that affirmed the rating on AIG the night before the US government took control of the company with an $85 Billion bailout. I guess this is payback Roubini was tweeting away on a weekend fishing trip in Maine that he was catching AA US Fish and to get the good AAA Fish they would have to cross over to the Canadian side