The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[VinBucFan]

I am in no doubt though that if they can "expense" some or all of the move they will, and the "tax deduction" might well be a tipping point in making it worth while or not. This is common sense.

Now where I believe I am more with VBF is that not only is that PrezBo imply, but it does it deliberately to create another boogey man as I suggested earlier.

Of course that is common sense BUT (and this was the point I was making) that is NOT what the President said.  And you are right on the reason he said it the way he did

[CBWx2]

in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate

the President said that the standard deduction that companies get for any expenses MOTIVATES companies to move overseas. 

The only thing funnier is watching CBW defend it while calling me a moron . . . and then proving my point with his own comments

What's the definition of "fraud", Vince?

Actually, there is one thing funnier. While there is that whole deduction thing, which is one incentive, a larger one lies in the fact that companies that outsource manufacturing also receive a foreign tax credit, a tax break that allows them to deduct the amounts they have paid in taxes to foreign countries.

In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses. Those include tightening up on tax rules that allow companies to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income, and reducing the ability of companies to siphon profits they earn in the U.S. to overseas subsidiaries.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/05/tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas-explained/

Interesting that the Fox News fact checkers forgot to mention those loopholes that create an incentive to off shore.

hahahahahahahahahahaah . . . .  . OMG . . . . . right on cue . . . .  thanks for PROVING MY POINT in the post right above yours.  LMAO, notice the slight shift in the debate . . . . hahaahah. . . . CBW ..  . thanks for the great laugh.  Predictable, but still freaking funny because you just can't help yourself.  Have fun filling up those next six pages!!

Not shifting the debate at all, Vince. You stated that Obama's comments were incorrect because you don't see deducting costs associated with moving locations as an incentive. The President didn't specifically name that as what he was referring to. Fox News made that distiction. So if the things quoted in the story above are what Obama was referring to, does that qualify as an incentive to you? Direct question. Let's see if you provide a direct answer. My bets are on "NO".

[VinBucFan]

This is what the President said, right?

""I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas."

CBW,  you might think I am a "moron" and that is fine, but I am not going to prove you right by engaging with you. :-)  You do just fine on your own.  Bye, bye . .

(hahahaaha . . .page one down . .  five to go)

[CBWx2]

This is what the President said, right?

""I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas."

CBW,  you might think I am a "moron" and that is fine, but I am not going to prove you right by engaging with you. :-)  You do just fine on your own.  Bye, bye . .

(hahahaaha . . .page one down . .  five to go)

Yeah, didn't think you would offer a direct answer to a direct question.

Obama's comment: "I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas."

The Wall Street Journal article on Obama's proposals: "In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses. Those include tightening up on tax rules that allow companies to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income, and reducing the ability of companies to siphon profits they earn in the U.S. to overseas subsidiaries."

I'll ask again, Vince. Do the things specified by the Wall Street Journal as being part of Obama's comprehensive plan to curb off shoring qualify as incentives? And if so, does that not make his comment at the debate truthful? It's an exercise in futility to get an intellectually honest answer out of PB&J, but it's still a fun exercise every once in awhile.

[VinBucFan]

(page two . . .  .)

[spartan]

CBW this is where you and this blogger is wrong. US companies don't "siphon" profits abroad. What you, the President and the blogger are referring are the sales and profits made by US companies in foreign countries. US companies pay taxes on those profits in those countries. What the President wants to do is to tax US companies on their overseas profits at full US rates, on top the taxes they have already paid in other countries. No other country on the planet does this and it would put US companies at such a global disadvantage that it would force US companies to move abroad.

Now, add on to this that no US companies wants to bring their overseas profits home and be taxed at US rates? What does that tell you about the current corporate tax rates let alone what it will be AFTER the President has increased them by 5 percentage points?

[Morgan]

Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:

    Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
    Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was two.
    He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
    He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
    He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loan guarantees, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loan guarantees.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/

[spartan]

But that $90 billion included loan guarantees, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loan guarantees.

And you can't hire teachers with all the money we have to pay because the companies this administration has provided guarantees for have gone belly up!

[tripblood]

Speaking of teachers.. Romney will lose Florida, partially because Rick Scott.. That dude is straight evil

And those who have been paying attention know it.. But Floridas education system had been fd ever since Bush was governor. The only thing you learn through 12 years in a Florida public school, is how to pass the FCAT

[Morgan]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/snl-pans-obama-debate-performance

[John Galt?]

The Wall Street Journal article on Obama's proposals: "In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses. Those include tightening up on tax rules that allow companies to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income, and reducing the ability of companies to siphon profits they earn in the U.S. to overseas subsidiaries."

My question is "after 3 1/2 years in office, why hasn't he done anything about those proposals?"


Sorry but if I hire someone to do a job and they tell me they have these "Great Ideas" on how to do it, and then after 45 months they still haven't even started the job but say "now I have even better ideas" then I say........Sorry, YOU ARE FIRED!!!!!!"

[CBWx2]

CBW this is where you and this blogger is wrong. US companies don't "siphon" profits abroad. What you, the President and the blogger are referring are the sales and profits made by US companies in foreign countries. US companies pay taxes on those profits in those countries.

spartan, you can't honestly tell me that you don't think US companies have figured out ways to use accounting maneuvers to move profits off shore to avoid paying US taxes on it. But that's beside the point. The president labeled this as an incentive to off shore, and I don't even think you can argue that it isn't. That makes him right and businessman Mitt Romney the disingenuous one, am I right? If you don't like the WSJ article, here's another one from USA Today written about these tax incentives back in 2008:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm

What the President wants to do is to tax US companies on their overseas profits at full US rates, on top the taxes they have already paid in other countries. No other country on the planet does this and it would put US companies at such a global disadvantage that it would force US companies to move abroad.

Now, add on to this that no US companies wants to bring their overseas profits home and be taxed at US rates? What does that tell you about the current corporate tax rates let alone what it will be AFTER the President has increased them by 5 percentage points?

The US has so many tax incentives and loopholes for corporations that it makes the US corporate income tax rate irrelevant. US companies pay a higher tax rate, but actually pay a lower rate than most foreign competitors because other countries don't have those loopholes. Very few if any corporations actually end up paying a 35% rate on profits. Many don't even pay income taxes at all.

I am not aware of Obama calling for a 5% increase on the corporate income tax rate. Do you have a source for that?

I personally favor lowering the corporate income tax rate by 10% (which would put our rate on par with most European countries) IF we were to eliminate most of the incentives that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes (which don't exist in most European countries). I think this can be done in a way that both increases revenue without adversely harming businesses.

[Dolorous Jason]

Speaking of teachers.. Romney will lose Florida, partially because Rick Scott.. That dude is straight evil

And those who have been paying attention know it.. But Floridas education system had been fd ever since Bush was governor. The only thing you learn through 12 years in a Florida public school, is how to pass the FCAT

The education system has been fd up since time immemorial...and only getting worse since the creation of the Federal Department of Education. What are you talking about ?

[dbucfan]

Speaking of teachers.. Romney will lose Florida, partially because Rick Scott.. That dude is straight evil

And those who have been paying attention know it.. But Floridas education system had been fd ever since Bush Askew was governor. The only thing you learn through 12 years in a Florida public school, is how to pass the FCAT

That is as far back as I can confirm - came here in '78

[VinBucFan]

spartan, you can't honestly tell me that you don't think US companies have figured out ways to use accounting maneuvers to move profits off shore to avoid paying US taxes on it. But that's beside the point. The president labeled this as an incentive to off shore, and I don't even think you can argue that it isn't. That makes him right and businessman Mitt Romney the disingenuous one, am I right? If you don't like the WSJ article, here's another one from USA Today written about these tax incentives back in 2008:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm

(page 3 . .  no longer about what Obama said, or even what he meant . . . now whether US companies "siphon" profits through accounting measures . . . . . .shift . . .shift . . shift)