Is this all that surprising?

Obama's Administration Repelling Business
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssE...rgyNews&rpc=22

And before people start with their class warfare arguments remember that if private sector leaves or rolls back that is less revenue for the government to tax.

Margaret Thatcher was right.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"
So you think tax avoidance (and outright tax dodging) is okay?
NM

Last edited by sdc; 03-13-2009 at 09:46 AM.
No, of course it's not surprising. Just think back to the comments he made about the coal industry.

Politicians in NY are already afraid of what will happen if taxes are raised in the state. Out of 8,000,000 people in the City, 40,000 pay 50% of the taxes! Bloomberg has acknowledged this. It's a long perpetuated fallacy that "the rich" don't pay taxes. Of course, there are deductions avaliable to them to keep their tax liability down, but overall, they are bearing the majority of the tax burden.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell

Last edited by Scarlet; 03-14-2009 at 07:30 AM.
Not surprising. Incredibly saddening and angering...but not surprising. All you had to to was listen (or read) the words of his campaign and not be swayed by his soaring oratory. Shoot, listen to him when he didn't have a teleprompter.

What is very funny here is that his multitude of fans on the site are not flocking here to bash us.
My son wears combat boots (and a parachute).
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.



So you think tax avoidance (and outright tax dodging) is okay?
Originally Posted by battinlash
No I don't. But this is not tax dodging or avoidance. If I move my business from California to New Hampshire because there are lower business taxes, is that tax dodging?

I wonder if some of the people on this board have ever had to run a business. Notice how many companies in New York move to New Jersey. Hmm could it be the high taxes? Or why do whole industries up and leave the northeast and set up shop in the South. Hmm maybe it's the better business climate and lower taxes. It's smart common sense.

It's called incentives so don't be patronizing or ridiculous. If the administration understood that actions have consequences, and that there is no need to punish success and reward failure, then maybe this wouldn't have to happen. Just wait until they try and destroy the coal industry, as promised.
Nobody seems to be noticing that these are OIL companies moving to Switzerland.

Because they had fantastic tax loopholes and corporate welfare here that the Obama Admin is bent on getting rid of, and quite rightly.

But the future is not in oil — unless you are an ostrich. I realize that some of you may actually be ostriches. This is the internet, after all, anything's possible.

Also, in even more recent news, Switzerland is making their famously secretive banking system more transparent, so we'll see how many of these companies' moves actually take place, in light of that development.


Susan, the reason no one's flocking to this thread is because the boards are kinda broken and nothing's rising to the top of the "new posts" list properly anymore.

Last edited by wild~hair; 03-17-2009 at 11:43 AM.
So you think tax avoidance (and outright tax dodging) is okay?
Originally Posted by battinlash
No I don't. But this is not tax dodging or avoidance. If I move my business from California to New Hampshire because there are lower business taxes, is that tax dodging?

I wonder if some of the people on this board have ever had to run a business. Notice how many companies in New York move to New Jersey. Hmm could it be the high taxes? Or why do whole industries up and leave the northeast and set up shop in the South. Hmm maybe it's the better business climate and lower taxes. It's smart common sense.

It's called incentives so don't be patronizing or ridiculous. If the administration understood that actions have consequences, and that there is no need to punish success and reward failure, then maybe this wouldn't have to happen. Just wait until they try and destroy the coal industry, as promised.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
A lot of the people who automatically think the solution to all of our problems is to tax big, bad, industry have no concept of business. It sounds good, right? And this is the kneejerk reaction to which the adminstration is playing But they don't seem to understand is that these "evil' industries already bear huge tax obligations. Do they try to minimize their tax liabilities? Sure. They are businesses; they exist to make a profit [gasp]. Not to mention the little fact that they provide jobs through directly employing people, and indirectly through the business/industries who are customers/suppliers. What happens to these people when industries are taxed into oblivion? Industry and "the people" don't exist in separate silos. Hurt industry, and you hurt the masses.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell

Last edited by Scarlet; 03-17-2009 at 02:36 PM.
Nobody seems to be noticing that these are OIL companies moving to Switzerland.

Because they had fantastic tax loopholes and corporate welfare here that the Obama Admin is bent on getting rid of, and quite rightly.

But the future is not in oil unless you are an ostrich. I realize that some of you may actually be ostriches. This is the internet, after all, anything's possible.

Also, in even more recent news, Switzerland is making their famously secretive banking system more transparent, so we'll see how many of these companies' moves actually take place, in light of that development.


Susan, the reason no one's flocking to this thread is because the boards are kinda broken and nothing's rising to the top of the "new posts" list properly anymore.
Originally Posted by wild~hair
I think most of us were aware that these were oil companies, thanks for reading the article and stating the obvious. Also your generic comments about big bad business with tax loopholes and corporate welfare are misapplied to oil companies. They are actually overtaxed.

And when has "Big Oil" had fantastic tax loopholes. Are you joking? Exxon Mobil pays 44% tax! The little government subsidies oil companies get is for research and development which is a drop in the bucket compared to other energy markets, like coal, renewables, nuclear energy, and electricity. There are also negative subsidies that actually distort the market efficiency in the oil industry. So please spare me the corporate welfare stuff.

I can't help but laugh at anyone who see no use for oil. Petrochemicals are here to stay. They are not just fuel for your cars. Look at Brazil, the leader in ethanol (sugarcane-derived). They still consume, import and export more oil. Why? Because of the diesel consumption, the by-product industry, cost inefficiencies etc.

You also seem to overlook that moving these businesses will have ripple effects throughout the economy, affecting other industries and jobs of Americans.

And while you may regard yourself as a fortune teller, were you aware that all the research and development of alternative energy requires the old standby's like oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power. You need "ostrich-style" energy to produce and process the "new" energy. People need actual energy solutions for the here and now. The political reality has to work for the present not just an imagined future.

I'll have to read the Switzerland article at another time. I have actual work to do, boo.
So you think tax avoidance (and outright tax dodging) is okay?
Originally Posted by battinlash
No I don't. But this is not tax dodging or avoidance. If I move my business from California to New Hampshire because there are lower business taxes, is that tax dodging?

I wonder if some of the people on this board have ever had to run a business. Notice how many companies in New York move to New Jersey. Hmm could it be the high taxes? Or why do whole industries up and leave the northeast and set up shop in the South. Hmm maybe it's the better business climate and lower taxes. It's smart common sense.

It's called incentives so don't be patronizing or ridiculous. If the administration understood that actions have consequences, and that there is no need to punish success and reward failure, then maybe this wouldn't have to happen. Just wait until they try and destroy the coal industry, as promised.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Right. Punish success and reward failure. Can you tell me what your definition of "success" is? A company that makes a profit? How about a company that subjugates workers, destroys the environment, and uses government as a tool for its own ends and not the people's? Why is more growth necessarily an ideal when rampant capitalism has destroyed the standard of living (wages stagnant over the last two decades even though corporate profits and worker productivity have grown by leaps and bounds) and our planet? I'd be happy to see the end of the coal industry, thank you very much.

Maybe instead of taxing capital we should just prevent its mobility. If companies decide to move overseas where they can either a) avoid taxes they should duly pay, or b) exploit poor people in developing nations, like certain companies have been doing for years, then we should put high tariffs on anything being imported back into our country. If the US gov't finds out that Nike has been using sweatshops and taxes them $60 per pair of sneakers, I'm sure Nike will start adopting some different business practices...and still make good, sustainable profits.

I don't think its acceptable to just say, "oh, well, they're businesses, that's how they behave." Too often the media has been defending these poor corporations, when in fact they exercise way too much power over both people and the government. Fact of the matter is that it IS possible for businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, provide a living wage to its workers, and make good profits. Too bad Obama doesn't have the guts to do it.
CG since 07/26/09
Not surprising. Incredibly saddening and angering...but not surprising. All you had to to was listen (or read) the words of his campaign and not be swayed by his soaring oratory. Shoot, listen to him when he didn't have a teleprompter.

What is very funny here is that his multitude of fans on the site are not flocking here to bash us.
Originally Posted by susancnw

a husband beats his wife.
the police tell the husband he must stop beating his wife or go to jail.
the husband leaves the wife instead.
the wife is now mad because her abusive husband has gone.
Mandatory Fun:
All of your arguments are rooted in anti-capitalist hyperbole instead of any basic economic theory. I do understand where you are coming from in my younger days I would have been as uninformed and "outraged." I don't even know how to begin a response, it would take more than today. I'll take a stab at it later. Hopefully you'll come around and figure out how the world actually works.

Frau
Your comment is equally offensive and inane. To equate a company that provides a product that most everyone on the planet uses to a wifebeater is not only ridiculous but insulting to people who actually suffer at the hands of domestic abusers. These are corporations that provide a service, a product, jobs, tax revenue etc. And last time I checked, a company has the right to set up shop where the choose. This is basic econ 101. If that is hard to understand, I don't know where to begin.

Wild Hair:
What you call secretive banking some would call financial privacy and tax competition. Either way it looks like this is less Switzerland's doing and mostly pressure from the OECD and EU bureaucrats who have finally gotten what they wanted. Instead of simplifying and reducing their own taxes, they resort to bullying and blacklisting. We'll have to wait and see what is finally agreed up on and worked out after the G20 meetings.

Last edited by CottonCandyCurls; 03-27-2009 at 02:07 PM.
Mandatory Fun:
All of your arguments are rooted in anti-capitalist hyperbole instead of any basic economic theory. I do understand where you are coming from in my younger days I would have been as uninformed and "outraged." I don't even know how to begin a response, it would take more than today. I'll take a stab at it later. Hopefully you'll come around and figure out how the world actually works.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Cotton Candy Curls: not hyperbole, and not anti-capitalist. I'm just pro-"little guy." If that makes me an anti-capitalist, then I guess Theordore Roosevelt was one, too.

Anyway, I see the upside of stepping back and letting businesses do their thing (I have, despite your response, taken economics courses - it's my minor, actually): specialization, greater productivity, lower prices for all. But I think all of this comes at a price - namely, a decent quality of living for anyone who isn't an exec. I personally just value a greater quality of living for everyone than slightly lower prices for goods and much higher profits for businesses. Is that alright?

Aside from that, I truly believe that government panders to businesses. This is why Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 so aggressively pursued deregulation, making bankers rich and wiping out my parents' retirement funds and my own ability to continue to pay for my education. This is why the IMF (practically run by rich nations) lends money to poorer nations with absurd free trade stipulations attached - so that their own investors can go in, ravage their economies, and leave. This is why Barack Obama, a supposed "progressive" at best, a "socialist" at worst, apparently construes "health care for all" as pandering to the insurance companies. I'm pretty damn familiar with how the world works, I think, but it doesn't mean I have to accept it as a given like you do.

I'm offended that you would drag my age into it...it's really kind of a cop-out to say "Oh, you're young, so you obviously don't understand this issue," especially when you refuse to respond constructively or with any real rebuttals. I did just want to clarify, though, that I'm not an anti-capitalist. I look forward to your reply.
CG since 07/26/09
Not being snarky, but how do you see "deregulation" as wiping our your parents retirement savings?
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Not being snarky, but how do you see "deregulation" as wiping our your parents retirement savings?
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Deregulation of our financial industry has been occurring ever since Reagan took office. Just a few of the laws I take issue with:

The Depository Institutions Deregulation & Monetary Control Act (1980) - This bill removed interest rate caps, making sub prime lending much easier for banks. The Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982), which deregulted S&L industry and partially caused the S&L crisis later in the '80s. And the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) that allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge (presumably allowing everything to become 'too big too fail'). I'd also like to note that these bills had broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, so it's not a partisan issue, it's about our Congressmen doing their jobs.

Of course, I think there are other reasons for the crisis, too...Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the SEC didn't help, and there are even more reasons than that. The crisis is far too big to blame it on any one phenomenon. But even Greenspan noted that deregulation was a big part of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html

And now, as I'm sure you know, people with pension funds, people who hold stock as part of that retirement...well, that's not going to do anything for them now. It's not just my father and mother, either; nearly $2 trillion in retirement fund money was lost by October 2008, when the meltdown had just started. Imagine where it is now?
CG since 07/26/09

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com