When Obama takes office.....

[user 62394]

Joseymack,



I think that where you and I disagree is on the word "profits". You look at companies trying to make more money (profit) for their shareholders as a bad thing (yes, you threw in "at the expense of the American Workers", I won't discount that). To me, the point of a business is to make money, so to me, so finding a way to make more money is a good thing. It is kind of a harsh thing to say, but the company has its obligation to its shareholders, not the American worker. And I would argue that if the choise is beWe as a nation (government) need to adapt to business and the open market, not force the market to adapt to what the government wants.



Rocks

 

[user 62394]

Gavin,



The difference in automakers has more to do with labor costs and unions than they do tax rates. That is a dynamic that is pretty unique to that industry and those companies. And, by the way, they are moving stuff to Mexico. Nissan is in the process of moving a bunch of their engineering responsibilities to their Toluca technical center. (I work in the industry, and have been there several times).



Rocks

 

[Les]

The difference in automakers has more to do with labor costs and unions than they do tax rates.

I disagree, I believe the American companies are very poorly managed.





Frankly, the whole bunch, Democrats & Republicans, are an embarrassment to the citizens of this country. I think they should all be removed !!!

 

[TrainTrac]

I think it's about making more money for the few shareholders at the expense of the American workers...

"Few" shareholders? Do you really think that there are about 10 or 20 guys sitting up in some corporate office somewhere, who are the sole shareholders of these "evil" corporations, plotting ways to increase their profit margin, and stick it to the "American worker"?



Odds are that many of those same "American workers" have either pension plans, 401K's, mutual funds, or some other investment that makes them one of those "few shareholders".

Sure it's cheaper to do business there but at what cost to your own country? At what point do you decide you don't destroy your own house....

You're exactly right... almost. They do have to preserve their "own house". But that house is their business first. When DaimlerBenz and Chrysler merged back in the '90's, why do you think they based the corporation in Germany and not the USA? Because the corporate tax rates where higher here than in Germany. And before you go blaming the Republicans, you need to recall an important fact: First, it was President Jimmy Carter (Democrat) who granted Most Favored Nation Status to China, thereby opening up trade and business opportunities there.

Any tax break from the repubs is always and i mean always slanted towards helping the Wealthy.

Why shouldn't those who pay the most taxes get a tax break also? If your rational is that they should pay more because they make more, then you're basically advocating punishing achievement. Yup, the tax rates are unfair, but in the opposite direction. Too many people aren't paying taxes, and they're being supported by the earnings of hard-working, achieving Americans like you and me.



Here are the latest stats on the "unfair" tax rates, as of 2006. This info was just recently published by the IRS:

[Broken External Image]:

Their Fair Share

July 21, 2008



Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.



The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.



Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.



We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.



The mo