tagged w/ Tax Breaks
-
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
1 month ago
- |
-
A look back at how the Tea Party Republicans want tax cuts for ALL Americans! Well, except now we know that the ONLY way 160,000,000 working class Americans get a tax break is it MUST be countered with cuts to SS, MediCare and the Food Stamp programs! But the wealthy sector of society getting theirs is fine and dandy without having to find ways to pay for them!
The Republican Party CAN talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time!A look back at how the Tea Party Republicans want tax cuts for ALL Americans! Well,... more
-
-
2nd bacterial infection reported in Missouri baby
Riot police fire teargas to disperse protesters in China
Congress poised to pass payroll tax cut deal2nd bacterial infection reported in Missouri baby
Riot police fire teargas to... more
-
-
Hong Kong culls chickens at market, bans trade, as H5N1 found
With payroll tax cut unresolved, Congress packs up
N.Korea military, uncle to share power with Kim heirHong Kong culls chickens at market, bans trade, as H5N1 found
With payroll tax cut... more
-
-
President Obama's veto threat for a payroll tax cut that includes action on the Keystone oil pipeline is "posturing," the top Senate Republican said Sunday, asserting that enough Democrats support building the pipeline to enable a vote on a GOP-styled compromise.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" that his Democratic counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the president may want to check with their base before threatening to hold up a House version that calls for tying an extension of the tax holiday to a "shovel-ready" project like the transnational pipeline.
"I'm on the same side as Jimmy Hoffa and the AFL- CIO on this. The Teamsters and the AFL-CIO want the Keystone Pipeline right now," said McConnell, R-Ky. "Look, the president has been talking about creating jobs. This is ready to go immediately. All it requires is his sign off.
"Obviously we'll reach an agreement. The president is posturing here," he added.
The House legislation would extend the current payroll tax cut from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for another year. It would also extend unemployment benefits for 59 weeks as well as shorten the timeframe for approval of a pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Texas.
It also eliminates a regulation proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that would severely limit output on boilers. Twelve Democrats in the Senate have cosponsored legislation to rescind the boiler rules that opponents say could cost 800,000 jobs.
Reid said Friday that sending the House bill over to the Senate would be a waste of time because it will not pass, but McConnell argued otherwise.
"It has bipartisan support. But we also need to have something in there that prevents the loss of jobs and something that will create the jobs," McConnell said. "And that's why we inserted Boiler MACT, supported on a bipartisan basis and the Keystone pipeline supported on a bipartisan basis. One would save jobs, one would create jobs right now."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who appeared with Durbin on NBC's "Meet the Press," said "taxing one group to pay for a tax cut for another is not going to sell." But he also contradicted McConnell, suggesting that the pipeline proposal "is probably not going to sell" either.
Graham said since both sides acknowledge they want to extend the payroll tax cut, the "more important" decision is how to "come up with sustainable policy that will turn America around."
McConnell suggested that policy begins with a balanced package that "doesn't do anything for millionaires" but also doesn't tax job providers.
"We are not here to defend high income people. And in this bipartisan package that we're just discussing, we make sure that millionaires don't get unemployment and don't get food stamps. We freeze the pay for members of Congress and for all federal workers, continue to freeze the pay that has been frozen. This is a very balanced package," he said
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/republicans-contend-have-dem-support-to-pass-payroll-tax-cut-pipeline-package/#ixzz1gLK31ltJPresident Obama's veto threat for a payroll tax cut that includes action on the... more
-
-
This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.
http://veracitystew.com/2011/12/06/transcript-president-obamas-kansas-speech-on-the-economy/This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle... more
-
-
Earlier this year, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett made headlines by
publicly decrying the stark inequity between his own effective federal tax rate (about
17 percent, by his estimate) and that of his secretary (about 30 percent). The resulting
media firestorm has drawn welcome attention to unfair tax breaks that allow the richest
Americans to avoid paying their fair share of the personal income tax. But these inequities are not limited to the personal tax.
Our corporate tax system is plagued by very similar problems, problems that allow many of America’s most profitable corporations to pay little or nothing in federal income taxes.
This study takes a hard look at the federal income taxes paid or not paid by 280 of
America’s largest and most profitable corporations in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The companies in our report are all from Fortune’s annual list of America’s 500 largest corporations, and all of them were profitable in each of the three years analyzed. Over the three years, the 280 companies in our survey reported total pretax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion.
You think you are angry now? Wait until you read this.
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdfEarlier this year, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett made headlines by... more
-
-
Source: The Washington Post
Some of the country’s best-known multinationals closely guard a number they don’t want anyone to know: the breakdown between their jobs here and abroad.
So secretive are these companies that they hand the figure over to government statisticians on the condition that officials will release only an aggregate number. The latest data show that multinationals cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States and added 2.4 million overseas between 2000 and 2009.
Some of the same companies that do not report their jobs breakdown, including Apple and Pfizer, are pushing lawmakers to cut their tax bills in the name of job creation in the United States.
But experts say that without details on which companies are contributing to job growth and which are not, policymakers risk flying blind as they try to jump-start the hiring of American workers.
Read more at this Link...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/corporations-pushing-for-job-creation-tax-breaks-shield-us-vs-abroad-hiring-data/2011/08/12/gIQAZwhqUJ_singlePage.html
"Hmmm, I am not sure what to think about this, how about you folks???"Source: The Washington Post
Some of the country’s best-known multinationals... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
-
Let me see if I can't cheer you up a little by telling you how corporations are helping carry our tax burden. http://www.billschmalfeldt.com/?p=26060Let me see if I can't cheer you up a little by telling you how corporations are... more
-
-
But when "Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said that he would consider the elimination of some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of a reform of the tax code, provided that the program did not bring an overall increase in taxes.", then all of the Repub Speak doesn't achieve raising revenue at all. All the hullabaloo is simply to confuse the issue and force those whose assets have already been stolen to further pay for corporate republican's past wild spending sprees!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/us/politics/04budget.html?ref=usBut when "Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said that he would consider... more
-
-
The halls of the state Capitol seem remarkably quiet. The large groups of protesters are gone. Their signs and pizza boxes have been cleaned up. There are no more gangs of reporters trying to get their microphones in the face of the three men as they emerge from a room.
The battle between state aid to education and the millionaires tax is over. The millionaires won -- for now. Somehow, I sense that this fight is not finished.
School districts, the State University system and the people who are affected by their budgets face a very difficult round of job cuts, building closures and wage freezes. This year's cuts to education funding will squeeze the surplus funds out of wealthier districts and do serious damage to districts that were operating efficiently.
It's hard to see how our schools and university system will be able to absorb another round of cuts in next year's state budget. All of which brings me back to the "millionaires' tax."
The argument against keeping this tax was that it is bad for economic development. We are told it will drive rich people and their businesses out of the state. This claim needs to be further examined.
For the past 30 years, I have played a small role in the economic development of our region. As a member of the North Greenbush Industrial Development Authority, I have had an opportunity to work with dozens of companies, both large and small, that were in the process of deciding where to locate or expand their business.
Guess how many of these decisions were made based on New York state's personal income tax rate?
Not a single one.
On the other hand, almost every company owner placed a major emphasis on the ability to attract and retain a well-educated, well-trained work force.
If New York continues to sacrifice the education of our children so that a handful of millionaires can get a marginal tax break, we will do much more harm than good to the economic development of our state.
I am sure Gov. Andrew Cuomo is well-intentioned, but on the "millionaires' tax" and its impact on economic development, he's got it backward.
James Flanigan of Wynantskill is chairman of the North Greenbush Industrial Development Agency. The views expressed are his own.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Millionaires-tax-breaks-will-haunt-N-Y-1341252.php#ixzz1JwTFioKOThe halls of the state Capitol seem remarkably quiet. The large groups of protesters... more
-
-
President Obama is really laying waste to the GOP vision of austerity. In his words:
It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.
Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.
The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.
Update: Now Obama is offering his alternate vision, informed by a different idea of what America is. "The America I know," he says, "is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share." To afford the government we want, Obama argues, a sound fiscal policy is necessary. But it must be one consistent with our nation's values, and it must be one that allows government to accomplish what we want it to accomplish. For details of his proposal, see the first post in this live blog.
Update: Another crushing blow delivered to the GOP plan to abolish Medicare (which, by the way, they will vote on tomorrow):
The difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. ... Let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.
That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security.
Update: We are now in the final stretch of the speech. We're getting the obligatory 'tsk-tsk' to progressives who supposedly oppose any cuts whatsoever to government. (We don't, especially not useless defense and security spending, and we'd love to cut the fat out of Medicare by trying a public option.) And we're getting calls to bipartisan action, and a reminder that ultimately, to get anything done, we're going to have to find an approach that all the stakeholders can agree to. We have a responsibility to come together and get things done, a responsibility to each other and our nation, Obama says. (Republicans apparently don't agree, having blasted his speech earlier this morning before he even delivered it.)
Update: The speech is over. My quick take: it was a terrific speech, and offered a credible approach to long-term fiscal policy. It did an effective job of making the case for not just a progressive revenue stream, but a progressive government, and properly framed the GOP proposal as antithetical to the vision of America shared by most of the people in this country. He framed fiscal policy, properly, as being the way by which we fund government so that it can do what we want it to do, in contrast to the GOP's vision of fiscal policy, which seems to mean nothing but "cut government." Obviously, the true test here isn't just President Obama's speech today, but also what he manages to accomplish in the coming months and years as this debate unfolds. But at least in my view, today was a great way to start.
Update: One thing that I hope gets a lot of play, and attention, was Obama's devastating critique of Ryan's plan to reduce debt by eliminating Medicare and replacing it with vouchers. It was far tougher than I expected—any Republican who hears it should think twice before voting for it tomorrow.
Update: Last update—just was talking with someone about how sweet it was to hear Obama reject the notion that Ryan's plan was somehow courageous. As he said, "There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/13/966609/-President-Obamas-fiscal-policy-speechPresident Obama is really laying waste to the GOP vision of austerity. In his words:... more
-
-
House Democrats have introduced a bill that would eliminate tax breaks to raise money for education.House Democrats have introduced a bill that would eliminate tax breaks to raise money... more
-
-
It doesn't matter if you're a Mom and Pop business or the most mega of mega multinationals, you want a tax break. But, if some big businesses can be "too big to fail", can't some small business be "too small to survive" regardless of the breaks they get?It doesn't matter if you're a Mom and Pop business or the most mega of mega... more
-
-
Recently, the house and the senate have drafted opposing legislation on this matter into the new health care legislation (HR 3962). Black liquor is a toxic by-product of making pulp for paper production. It has been burned by paper companies as fuel for decades.
After mixing it with diesel, it's burned by the paper company as fuel, which qualifies them for a tax credit, enacted in 2007.
According to wikipedia, for one large company (International Paper) this could amount to as much as $3.7 billion in benefits per year.
This is another example of massive tax breaks for large companies that are not in the interest of the American public. Burning black liquor has a major negative effect on the environment, not to mention the additional consumption of diesel fuel. Additionally, smaller companies that produce 100% recycled post consumer paper cannot compete (they don't produce or use black liquor/diesel fuel so they can't get the massive tax break).
I encourage you to contact your representatives on this matter.
more at the article above and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liquorRecently, the house and the senate have drafted opposing legislation on this matter... more
-
-
Small business owners interested in setting up a Solo 401k have less than 60 days to set up a SOLO 401k if they plan on benefiting from the much needed tax relief allotted to them under the plan. Watch the video to learn more about the benefits of setting up a SOLO 401k and visit the Nabers' blog at http://JeffNabers.com.Small business owners interested in setting up a Solo 401k have less than 60 days to... more
-
-
Accidents Of History Created U.S. Health System
If you want to understand how to fix today's health insurance system, you'd be smart to look first at how it was born. How did Americans end up with a system in which employers pay for our health insurance? After all, they don't pay for our groceries or our gas.
It turns out there never was any central logic at work. The evolution of the American health care system began in the 1920s, when choices boiled down to which crazy cure you preferred.
Dr. John Brinkley, for instance, was a huge hit in American radio with his health advice shows. For whatever problem folks had, Brinkley had one fabulous solution: transplant a goat gland into your body. He pitched it as being perfect for everything from dementia to impotence to flatulence. But if, somehow, a goat gland didn't cure your ills, you could always use Bonnore's Electro Magnetic Bathing Fluid or Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment.
Before the birth of modern medicine, hospitals were poorhouses where the indigent went to die. Then came the advent of effective medicines, especially antibiotics, along with a revolution in medical schools.
Suddenly, says economic historian Melissa Thomasson, "hospitals are marketing themselves as places to have babies." The professor at the Miami University in Ohio says that in the early part of the 20th century, hospitals were able to focus on happy outcomes.
Health care became much more effective, and much more expensive. Clean hospitals, educated doctors and real pharmacological research cost money. People proved willing to pay for care when they were really sick, but it wasn't yet common to go for checkups or survivable illnesses.
By the late 1920s, hospitals noticed most of their beds were going empty every night. They wanted to get people who weren't deathly ill to start coming in.
"The war economy is an entirely different ballgame," Thomasson says. The government rationed goods even as factories ramped up production and needed to attract workers. Factory owners needed a way to lure employees. She explains that the owners turned to fringe benefits, offering more and more generous health plans.
The next big step in the evolution of health care was also an accident. In 1943, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that employer-based health care should be tax free. A second law, in 1954, made the tax advantages even more attractive.
Thomasson cites the huge impact of those measures on plan participation. "You start from 9 percent of the population in 1940 to 63 percent in 1953," she says. "Everybody starts getting in on it. It just grows by gangbusters. By the 1960s, 70 percent [of the population] is covered by some kind of private, voluntary health insurance plan."
Thus employer-based insurance, which started with Blue Cross selling coverage to Texas teachers and spread because of government price controls and tax breaks, became our system. By the mid-1960s, Thomasson says, Americans started to see that system — in which people with good jobs get health care through work and almost everyone else looks to government — as if it were the natural order of things.
But to Thomasson and other economic historians, there's nothing natural or inevitable about it. Instead, they see it as the profound result of historical accidents.Accidents Of History Created U.S. Health System
If you want to understand how to... more
-
-
Danny Schechter: While world debated bailout, Treasury snuck bank merger tax break under congress' nose.
While everyone was debating the wisdom of giving $700B over to the US Treasury to divide amongst failing banks in late September, the Treasury Department silently changed the tax code and in doing so opened up an opportunity for banks to save billions when acquiring other banks. The Associated Press reports that, in some cases, banks will actually make money in the act of buying up their competitors. They point to Wells Fargo's effort to acquire Wachovia, a deal that will cost roughly $15B but that, under the new tax code, will save Wells Fargo $20B. Danny Schechter believes that this is a prelude to the type of activities that can be expected from an empowered Treasury Department. He also points out that this is in line with the effect that the bailout bill itself is having, with the bailout money being used to acquire competitors instead of financing the flow of credit.
Meanwhile, Danny says, the Democrats are claiming that the bailout process lacks transparency, after they promised during the bailout debate that they would ensure oversight while pushing the bill through congress. Danny also indicates that all levels of government are stalling on what to do about the quickly sinking auto industry, a problem being made worse by the power vacuum in the White House as there are still two months before Obama takes over as president. At the end of the interview, Danny relays the rumors that Obama is looking to past administrations to fill his empty slot at the recently empowered Treasury Secretary position, with former Clinton Treasury Secretaries Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman under Reagan and Carter, Paul Volcker, being on the reported shortlist of candidates.
Danny Schechter, "The News Dissector," is a former network TV producer, radio newscaster, and edits MediaChannel.org. He has written nine books on media themes. His latest, 'Plunder', was inspired by his latest film, In Debt We Trust: America Before The Bubble Bursts.Danny Schechter: While world debated bailout, Treasury snuck bank merger tax break... more
-
