Whoopeee!!!
http://3trillion.org/
its exhilerating I tell you.
I want a refund.
I want a refund too.
But that doesn't excuse the tone of some of these arguments. This is SO similar to the case made in the 40s and 50s against getting involved in WWII, and against helping to rebuild Europe and Japan. Some of the similarities are almost word-for-word.
And quite frankly, I don't think most anti-war protestors today would want to admit that their rhetoric owes so much (if not everything) to the revolutionary socialists, and racist isolationists of yesteryear.
I would like to add that: $3 trillion is a direct investment in the US economy. That money has been spend on US salaries, US weapons manufacturers, food companies, etc etc. So it isn't exactly "throwing" money away as it goes back into the US economy (how many rugs can you buy at an Iraqi Bazaar anyway?)
But I agree that that kind of money could have spend in other areas that would benefit more of us all.
The solution: Lower US corporate income taxes. Agreed? ;D
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 09, 2008, 04:53:17 PM
The solution: Lower US corporate income taxes. Agreed? ;D
it's hard to believe in the alternative unless you are a big fan of Crisco and hot flames.
Let me explain it to you then, Stephen. Corporations are business entities which are actually owned by their shareholders, who are themselves tax paying individuals. The shareholders pay taxes on increased share values when they sell the stock and on the dividends issued by the corporation. There shareholders include many millions of ordinary people who have retirement accounts or pension plans. So, when you tax the corporation, you are actually taxing the shareholder and making American business less competitive globally in a world where many advanced nations have lower corporate tax rates.
Also, there is the not insignificant fact that these same corporations employ tens of millions of Americans and pay them wages allowing them to feed themselves and their families. Understand it now?
You really cannot be serious in including Ireland in that list. Perhaps you do not follow international and economic news like I do, but I thought everyone had heard the phrase "Celtic Tiger" by now. Ireland has embraced free market capitalism (including low corporate taxes) and has had a tremendous growth spree. They have even surpassed their old colonial masters in the UK in many economic measurements. Read more here:
QuoteCeltic Tiger (Irish: TÃogar Ceilteach) is a name for the period of rapid economic growth in the Republic of Ireland that began in the 1990s and slowed in 2001, only to pick up pace again in 2003 and then have slowed down once again by 2006. During this time, Ireland experienced a boom in which it was transformed from one of Europe's poorer countries into one of its wealthiest. The causes of Ireland's growth are the subject of some debate, but credit has been primarily given to free market capitalism: low corporate taxation; decades of investment in domestic higher education; a low-cost labour market; a policy of restraint in government spending; and EU membership - which provided transfer payments and export access to the Single Market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_tiger
UAE is also experiencing a large amount of growth. Dubai, for example, has made itself into a tourism and financial metropolis and is now building the tallest building in the world.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Burjdubai20feb.jpg/200px-Burjdubai20feb.jpg)
The Saudis are largely dependent on oil. Oman and Tanzania are really 3rd World nations so I hardly find them appropriate comparisons.
So, it is clear that on balance low corporate tax rates attract businesses, keep domestic businesses in country and help them to grow.
You have to compare apples to apples. All things being equal, lower tax rates help to grow business. This is really fact by this point.
QuoteTax
Many economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s), and to net transfer payments from members of the European Union like Germany and France that were as high as 4% of gross national product. Between 1997 and 2004, Charlie McCreevy, the Minister for Finance, pursued fiscal policies such as low taxation[3] and contributed to a dramatic reduction in public debt over the boom years.[4] He was voted Ireland's best Minister for Finance in 2004 by Finance magazine.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_tiger
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Ireland_tax_comparision.jpg/201px-Ireland_tax_comparision.jpg)
Look at the different tax structures. Then look at the results. The Irish model brought them from being the one of the poorest countries in western Europe to one of the richest in a generation. Things dont happen by accident. They are brought about by free enterprise encouraged by good policy.
Stephen: My view is you need a floor (provided by good, incorruptable and efficient government) for the free market to succeed. Basically, you need a safe society with laws that protect citizens from violence, assure them equal treatment and which protect property and contract rights (together with an independent judiciary). You also need to have proper infrastructure including good roads, transit and energy delivery. A basic safety net for the truly indigent, aged and infirm should be part of this too. These services require some taxes and the government should tax just enough to do these things right and then let the free market build the rest.
Quote from: stephendare on May 12, 2008, 01:48:54 AM
Mostly as a result of tax refugees from england and america.
Doesnt this prove the point that low corporate taxes attract business then?
The difference is you favor higher corporate taxes apparently. ;)
The questions then become what is "fair", who defines what fairness is and what happens when this fairness ends up harming the larger economy thereby hurting the very people that the fairness was designed to help.
You cannot be serious.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the following periods were recessions in the US beginning with the big one:
August 1929 -- March 1933
May 1937 -- June 1938
February 1945 -- October 1945
November 1948 -- October 1949
July 1953 -- May 1954
August 1957 -- April 1958
April 1960 -- February 1961
December 1969 -- November 1970
November 1973 -- March 1975
January 1980 -- July 1980
July 1981 -- November 1982
July 1990 -- March 1991
March 2001 -- November 2001
http://www.nber.org/cycles/
So, your contention is that recessions do not occur during Democrat Presidencies? That is rich. :D :D
Did it occur to you that there have been more recessions during Republican Presidencies since WW2 because Republicans have held the office the majority of the time?
BTW, I dont know how Nixon can be blamed for the recession of Dec, 1969 to Nov, 1970 since he just took office in early 1969. He can certainly be blamed for the 1973 recession. As for the January, 1980 recession, it is pretty hard to blame this on Reagan since he was not even in office until January, 1981. And finally, the 2001 recession closely followed the end of the Clinton Presidency and was basically a consequence of the bursting of the dot com bubble. So, things are not exactly as you stated. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2008, 11:21:41 AM
QuoteThe questions then become what is "fair", who defines what fairness is and what happens when this fairness ends up harming the larger economy thereby hurting the very people that the fairness was designed to help.
and btw, when something is 'fair', it isnt designed to be 'helping' any particular group.
Low taxes help everyone by spurring the economy. To quote John F. Kennedy, Democrat icon: "a rising tide lifts all boats". ;D
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 15, 2008, 02:56:57 PM
So, your contention is that recessions do not occur during Democrat Presidencies? That is rich. :D :D
Did it occur to you that there have been more recessions during Republican Presidencies since WW2 because Republicans have held the office the majority of the time?
BTW, I dont know how Nixon can be blamed for the recession of Dec, 1969 to Nov, 1970 since he just took office in early 1969. He can certainly be blamed for the 1973 recession. As for the January, 1980 recession, it is pretty hard to blame this on Reagan since he was not even in office until January, 1981. And finally, the 2001 recession closely followed the end of the Clinton Presidency and was basically a consequence of the bursting of the dot com bubble. So, things are not exactly as you stated. ;)
This is rich. What a weak argument. But I give you a lot of credit for constructing your silk purse from a sows ear as best you could.
And BTW, using "Democrat" when you should be using "Democratic" is such an illiterate affectation, especially from one who should know better.
So what is your argument, "professor" midway?
it did...until 2006 when the taxes were actually higher than in 2000 when Bush took office. things started slowing then.