U.S. Debt discussion

[Slava]

I just find it hilarious that the only place I hear about the evils of "Obamacare" and how it's now being blamed for not enough job creation (!) is here on CP. It's amazing that a few posters here have pin-pointed the problem so effectively!

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps there is more than one factor that inspires business to create jobs. They've got the money to invest in jobs but, lack the will. Do you think maybe the uncertain liability of Obamacare going foreward and possibly the fact that the President wants to take more from them and will if given a chance might factor in. Imagine if you owned a small business and were considering taking the risk of expanding. How comfortable would you be with the Presidents constant talk of more taxes or the fact that the true cost of Obamacare is still going to hit in the next couple of years. Would you risk expanding to over 50 employees and be required by law to provide government sanctioned health care for all of your employees?

One thing is certain: Business don't expand without capital and taxes never improves business. Businesses that are just hanging on will go under. Big business will find loop holes or move their operations to a place with lower taxes. Either way America loses.

Texas is responsibile for half the new jobs being created in America today. They are doing it with low taxes rates and by stream lining regulation. Obama wants to go the other way.

The least you could do was put quotations around your post and thank Hannity for it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps there is more than one factor that inspires business to create jobs. They've got the money to invest in jobs but, lack the will. Do you think maybe the uncertain liability of Obamacare going foreward and possibly the fact that the President wants to take more from them and will if given a chance might factor in. Imagine if you owned a small business and were considering taking the risk of expanding. How comfortable would you be with the Presidents constant talk of more taxes or the fact that the true cost of Obamacare is still going to hit in the next couple of years. Would you risk expanding to over 50 employees and be required by law to provide government sanctioned health care for all of your employees?

One thing is certain: Business don't expand without capital and taxes never improves business. Businesses that are just hanging on will go under. Big business will find loop holes or move their operations to a place with lower taxes. Either way America loses.

Texas is responsibile for half the new jobs being created in America today. They are doing it with low taxes rates and by stream lining regulation. Obama wants to go the other way.

I may have my dates off, but I think the idea of "Trickledown" pre-dates Obamacare by a day or two.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by SebC

That sounds terrible. First of, it would have the same artificial favouring of vertically integrated companies (i.e., the rich get richer) that a straight sales tax does (as opposed to a value-added tax).

There's such thing as an optimal tax mix. It's hard to determine exactly, but generally, it's higher consumption taxes and lower income taxes (hence why Harper's GST cut was absolutely assinine).

The tax you support may be simple, but it isn't optimal.

The rich would actually pay this tax. Every transaction, every stock trade, every purchase, the more you play, the more you pay.

[Tinordi]

Gloves are off at the new york times.

The Republican Wreckage

Http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26tue1.xml

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps there is more than one factor that inspires business to create jobs.

Please don't regurgitation the laziest intellectual position possible; the flimsy yet irrefutable (yet still remarkably hypocritical) smears of Republican presidential nominees.
CP deserves so much better.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you think maybe the uncertain liability of Obamacare going foreward and possibly the fact that the President wants to take more from them and will if given a chance might factor in.

Ugh.
How can you conclude that to be the most relevant factor in any - much less every - business plan?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They've got the money to invest in jobs but, lack the will.

Obama's health care reforms have sapped the will of private enterprises to succeed via growth?
That's a dumb opinion and cheap political attack by Palin standards.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Texas is responsibile for half the new jobs being created in America today. They are doing it with low taxes rates and by stream lining regulation. Obama wants to go the other way.

Texas is stealing jobs from other states, dropping average and median wages, and has an alarming rate of uninsured citizens.
I strenuously agree that Obama wants to the other way.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you just think it is all about politics.

Please expand on how this is not "all about politics."
Specifically, the politics of refusing to endorse Obama's bill that included $4trillion in spending cuts as part of an 83% / 17% split between decreased spending and increased revenue.

"Being broke is bad" is only political if you exclusively follow the recent talking points of the party that ran this debt up.
"Recent talking points" being defined as "tenets that the Bush and Reagan administration considered to be complete poppycock."

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

How can you afford it when you're running at trillion dollar deficit and you're in danger of defaulting on your debt because you can't raise the debt ceiling.

Congress could easily raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has not been raised because the party in power doesn't want it raised.
They do not want it raised because it remains a 'hill for Obama to die on' in the eyes of the casually engaged.

Originally Posted by Azure

If you can't afford a trillion dollar healthcare program, you don't sign the bill. Obama pushed it through when he should have done everything he trying to do now instead.

Speaking of "pushing a bill through," the Republican plan would require a 2/3rds supporting vote in the congress and the senate to initiate a constitutional amendment before voting on the debt ceiling. Prudent?

Please support the claim of "a trillion dollar healthcare program."

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that Obamacare would increase the national debt. The CBO writes that, by the end of 2019 alone, Obamacare "would amount to a net increase in federal deficits of $226 billion."

That's peanuts compared to what a downgraded credit rating would do to the world economy. And, at worst, Obama is making a misguided and doomed effort to save American lives. What are the goals of the Republicans?

Originally Posted by Azure

The solution is obvious. But it doesn't involve 'raising taxes.' It involves closing loopholes and restructuring the corporate tax rate to create an even playing field for everyone. Apparently that will increase revenues by up to $500-$600 billion per year, which is a pretty win/win situation I'd say.

But that's exactly where the Republicans are drawing a line in the sand.

Originally Posted by Azure

Also, you HAVE to reform entitlement spending. There is no way around it anymore.

This is lobbing you a meatball right in your wheelhouse, but why is this an important issue to settle before lifting the debt ceiling (assuming you think it is) if the government is borrowing money from social security to pay it's bills right now?

Surely that fight could wait until another day while the government decides not to risk plunging the country into a depression as the world is still eager to lend it money at historically low interest rates?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by giver99

The rich would actually pay this tax. Every transaction, every stock trade, every purchase, the more you play, the more you pay.

True, but a small business that's just one part of the supply chain pays tax on its input, and gets taxed on it's output. The more different companies there are in the production of a good, the more tax gets paid. That puts the product at a competitive disadvantage. The companies that pay minimal tax are the ones that own their entire supply chain. That's what "artificial favouring of vertically integrated companies means". The more capital you have, the less tax you pay to bring a product to market.

My point remains valid. APT is not an efficient tax.

The best tax system (in terms of maximizing tax revenue and minimizing economic distortions) is one that emphasizes VAT.

[SeeBass]

[SeeBass]

I was just wondering how come I never heard a single word about NFL collective bargaining being bad?

A little off topic

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by SebC

True, but a small business that's just one part of the supply chain pays tax on its input, and gets taxed on it's output. The more different companies there are in the production of a good, the more tax gets paid. That puts the product at a competitive disadvantage. The companies that pay minimal tax are the ones that own their entire supply chain. That's what "artificial favouring of vertically integrated companies means". The more capital you have, the less tax you pay to bring a product to market.

My point remains valid. APT is not an efficient tax.

The best tax system (in terms of maximizing tax revenue and minimizing economic distortions) is one that emphasizes VAT.

The tax would be something like 0.03 percent. Vertically integrated companies would not have much advantage. Even they would have inputs to purchase, possibly more transactions than someone buying components from middlemen.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by giver99

The tax would be something like 0.03 percent. Vertically integrated companies would not have much advantage. Even they would have inputs to purchase, possibly more transactions than someone buying components from middlemen.

It ends up being a tax on a tax as you go down the supply chain...

There's a pretty easy workaround for this to minimize the amount of tax paid anyhow. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes to figure out.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Shazam

It ends up being a tax on a tax as you go down the supply chain...

There's a pretty easy workaround for this to minimize the amount of tax paid anyhow. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes to figure out.

You might say cash, but even that would be taxed when you take it out at the teller or ATM. If the cash were eventually deposited, it would be taxed again as another transaction. Not perfect, but the same issue already exists in our current tax system regarding cash. This is basically a tax that gets levied any time money is used. Anyhow, not a chance this would ever see the light of day. I would be happy to settle for a one page tax code.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by giver99

You might say cash, but even that would be taxed when you take it out at the teller or ATM. If the cash were eventually deposited, it would be taxed again as another transaction. Not perfect, but the same issue already exists in our current tax system regarding cash. This is basically a tax that gets levied any time money is used. Anyhow, not a chance this would ever see the light of day. I would be happy to settle for a one page tax code.

I too would love a one page tax code because I'd game it to death.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its not a political limitation if the US is having problems recovering. Much of the talks have been about tax reform, or more specifically, closing the loopholes to create a level playing field for all businesses alike, not just the big ones like GE. Many people say small businesses are a driving point in the economy, and right now they're not driving anything. Canada has a much more simple tax code, with a lot less loopholes, and a lower overall corporate tax rate. When we talk about lowering the corporate tax rate, we're talking about lowering it from 17% to 16%. The US is talking about lowering it from 35% to roughly 23%.

You can possibly claim that such a change to the system is political. The change in the business community would be HUGE.

Just to be clear. This is a political limitation born entirely of the institution of the American government.

Canada would not be having this problem right now if the situations were reversed. The Canadian executive would just raise the debt limit.

This is a political problem, not a market problem.

correction: Canada doesn't even have a debt limit to raise

[J pold]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is a political problem, not a market problem.

It could become a market problem soon enough. Just ask Greece, Italy,
Ireland etc how their bond auctions for funding are going.

Canada does have a debt ceiling -- it's whatever the market will tolerate.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by giver99

It could become a market problem soon enough. Just ask Greece, Italy,
Ireland etc how their bond auctions for funding are going.

Have you bothered to look at yields on U.S. t-bills? Hell they've barely budged even amid this tempest. Many many people are still willing to invest in the U.S. economy.

[Hockeyguy15]

Funny how politicians like to play political chicken with their peers when it comes down to crunch time. Clearly all of these people are using this issue to maximize their TV/Print/Radio time.

I have a feeling that dragging their feet on this one is going to come back to haunt them.