Now I'm really freaking

Altron said:
I'm not an Obama-hater, but I don't know how he plans to increase corporate taxation and promote economic growth at the same time. That issue bugged me throughout his whole campaign. We're going to force companies to make new jobs by taxing them more?! I mean, you could learn economics from wikipedia, and you'd still know that if you take money away from a company, they're probably going to lay people off. It's harder to liquidate excess equipment and property (especially when property values are down so low) than it is to just lay off a bunch of people. Especially if they're currently not paying taxes at all. Do you think most companies can handle a sudden jump from 0% tax to 35% tax without crumbling?

We've all learned from Herbert Hoover - if the economy is down, the last thing you want to do is increase taxes on corporations in an attempt to balance the federal budget.

I don't know about you guys, but I like a booming economy, low unemployment, and massive federal debt more than I like an economic recession, massive unemployment, and a large federal debt.
Click to expand...
It'll hurt..but then again, it's taxes they weren't paying before, but should've been paying. Close tax loopholes now and lower the overall corp taxation rate to a more reasonable percentage. If it's done right, you get companies that can now compete based on equal playing surface as opposed competing for access to better tax-dodging lawyers and accountants.

I can see Walmart quivering in it's boots over this one.

Anyone wanna bet that most of their assets are overseas instead of at home?
:glasses3:
 
Ah, that's a good point Bish. If half the companies pay 0%, and half pay 35%, making everyone pay 17.5% is better.
 
jimpeel said:
Old news. Several months ago the UN stated that they should wrest control from the U.S. and be the sole arbiter of its operation.
Click to expand...

new news too.
Still. Gotta stay on top of um.
We don't need no stinkin' central control on this.
Need good techs in the respective countries, and let local laws apply.

Here it's kinda been the way that we do here now.
IMO just like with the tv providers, the providers need to all have easy blocking 'options'.
Gov censorship should depend solely on well deliberated situations of security, and legal interest.
 
Altron said:
Ah, that's a good point Bish. If half the companies pay 0%, and half pay 35%, making everyone pay 17.5% is better.
Click to expand...
...especially for the companies who currently pay 35%...and will be able to get even more competitive than they already are..start hiring people, expanding etc...

I'm hoping that you weren't being sarcastic.
 
The head of America's National Security Agency says that America needs to build a digital warfare force for the future, according to reports.

Lt Gen Keith Alexander, who also heads the Pentagon's new Cyber Command, outlined his views in a report for the House Armed Services subcommittee.

In it, he stated that the US needed to reorganise its offensive and defensive cyber operations.

The general also said more resources and training were needed.
The report, part of which was outlined in an Associated Press news agency story, is due to be presented to the subcommittee on Tuesday.
During the past six months, the Pentagon spent more than £67m ($100m) responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other network problems.

Gen Keith Alexander's new department, to be based in Fort Meade in Maryland, will be part of the US Strategic Command - currently responsible for securing the US military's networks - and will work alongside the US Department of Homeland Security.

It is thought the new department would open in October and be at full strength in 2010.



Self defence
A separate document, from the US Air Force's chief information officer Lt Gen William Shelton, said the US relies heavily on industry efforts to respond to cyber threats which, he says, "does not keep pace with the threat".

Peter Wood, operations chief with First Base Technologies and an expert in cyber-warfare, said that the US were entirely within their rights to protect themselves.

"My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the US is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing.

"The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid. If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks," he said.

"The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."

The submissions to the House Armed Services subcommittee comes a few days after the National Research Council - part of the United States National Academy of Sciences - said that current US policies on cyber warfare are "ill-formed, lack adequate oversight and require a broad public debate".

The report went on to say that the "undeveloped and uncertain nature" of the US governments cyber warfare policies could lead to them being misused in a possible crisis.

The US administration is due imminently to publish the results of a 60-day review on cyber-security ordered by President Obama.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8033440.stm
 
ok I'm back to reality again....

in other thread...
well, now the catch.
It's going to be buried in the spending bill...I mean the so called budget.

ditto on the other too.

too bad. Those are good, but not if we have to have all that other.
Click to expand...

yeah, they've still got this 'comprehensive' frame of mind.
 
MrBishop said:
Closing tax loopholes... about damn time!
Click to expand...
The US has been giving tax incentives to companies for years to move jobs overseas.

Why should companies benefit from this? Why should I hold them up on my shoulders? Fuck them... they can pay their fair share like I do.
 
valkyrie said:
The US has been giving tax incentives to companies for years to move jobs overseas.

Why should companies benefit from this? Why should I hold them up on my shoulders? Fuck them... they can pay their fair share like I do.
Click to expand...

But what if their share isn't fair?
 
That's right Jim, their share isn't fare if they're using loopholes and tax havens. In fact it's often zero. That's why we need to clamp down on this crap.
 
cble.JPG
 
spike said:
That's right Jim, their share isn't fare if they're using loopholes and tax havens. In fact it's often zero. That's why we need to clamp down on this crap.
Click to expand...
The part you refuse to understand is that these so-called "loopholes" are the companies following current law.

Try this:

The assault weapons law was written to preclude pistol grips which protrude below the trigger guard. Standard stocks were not regulated at all.

To CONFORM WITH THE LAW the manufacturers came up with the "thumbhole" stock which was not illegal at all. The law did not address the thumbhole stock.

Immediately, the anti-firearms folks started calling the thumbhole stock a "loophole".

What the name "loophole" implies, and which you buy into, is that the people exploiting these "loopholes" are doing something illegal or unlawful. They are not. They are in strict compliance with the laws as written.

When I stated "Unfair taxation and poorly written laws is what caused this in the first place." you countered with "Nope, leaving loopholes open and the availability of tax havens is what caused this."

If the laws had been properly written in the first place the "loopholes" would not be there to exploit. The laws allow "tax havens" because the laws were poorly written and didn't exclude them. If they are not excluded, then by law they are included. Now, remember that part about thumbhole stocks?

I know you won't get this but I'm tryin' here, ya know?
 
jimpeel said:
The part you refuse to understand is that these so-called "loopholes" are the companies following current law.
Click to expand...

No shit Jim. Which is why these loopholes are currently being addressed...which i am for and you are not. You buy into the moronic notion that closing the loopholes is business hating commie stuff. :laugh:

What the name "loophole" implies, and which you buy into, is that the people exploiting these "loopholes" are doing something illegal or unlawful.
Click to expand...

No Jim, you made that up. I don't think they are doing something illegal. I think what they are doing should be illegal. Do you comprehend the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top