Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Bush's $136 Billion Corporate Tax Cut

Old 10-22-04, 06:42 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: st paul mn
Posts: 2,028
Bush's $136 Billion Corporate Tax Cut

On top of $440 billion for bombs! NASA gets blasted for taking $15.5 billion!


edit - uh duh, did I forget this link?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Last edited by LtlPhysics; 10-22-04 at 07:57 PM.
LtlPhysics is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 06:51 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Deep inside a great big empty
Posts: 713
Is this a secret code I missed out on again sorta like the fosnizzle thing I hear so much about from the kids?
Creek Rat is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 06:53 PM
  #3  
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Glendale, next to L.A.
Posts: 18,486
Moving to Election 2004

Chris
mrpayroll is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:09 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Corporations should pay taxes anyway. It's stupid.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:35 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Mov- er, yeah, what <b>mrpayroll</b> said.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:38 PM
  #6  
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Glendale, next to L.A.
Posts: 18,486
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Mov- er, yeah, what <b>mrpayroll</b> said.

- David Stein
sorry!

Chris
mrpayroll is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:42 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 3,055
Especially those s-class "corporations" who are small business owners. Deli owners. Barbes. Landscapers. They are ROLLING in the corporate profits.

Using the term corporations and tax-cuts is pure propaganda for the ignorant.
Sloth911 is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:49 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: st paul mn
Posts: 2,028
What?

This has nothing to do with the election. This is business as usual.
LtlPhysics is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 07:51 PM
  #9  
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Glendale, next to L.A.
Posts: 18,486
Re: What?

Originally posted by LtlPhysics
This has nothing to do with the election. This is business as usual.
Well you mentioned Bush's name, so it automatically goes into the Election pool!

Chris
mrpayroll is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:03 PM
  #10  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Excellent. They can use the money to hire workers and spend it on buying machinery.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:23 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Re: What?

Originally posted by LtlPhysics
This has nothing to do with the election. This is business as usual.
Tax cuts are one of the primary election issues at the moment. Besides, you made this a political issue by referencing bombs and NASA's budget.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:32 PM
  #12  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041022/ap/d85spt900.html
Key Elements of Corporate Tax Bill

Key provisions of the corporate tax bill signed Friday by President Bush. The cost estimates over 10 years come from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation:

_Repeal tax break for American exporters that the World Trade Organization found violated global trade rules. Savings: $49.2 billion.

_Close a variety of corporate loopholes and tax shelters. One of the provisions to save $2.4 billion would tighten deduction rules for donating cars to charities. Total savings: $81.7 billion.

_Cut taxes for manufacturers and other domestic producers, a category which would include such non-factory operations as construction companies, engineering and architectural firms, film and music companies, and the oil and gas industry. Cost: $76.5 billion.

_Revise rules governing treatment of multinational corporations including allowing companies with overseas operations to bring profits back to the United States at a reduced rate for a limited time. Cost: $42.6 billion.

_Reinstates the deductibility of state and local sales taxes on individuals' federal income tax returns, which will primarily benefit residents of Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, all which have a state sales tax, and Alaska, which has local sales taxes but not a state sales tax. Cost: $5 billion for a deduction that would last only until Dec. 31, 2005.

_Reduce excise taxes on the sale of bows and arrows, fishing tackle boxes and sonar fish finders. Cost: $24 million.

It's from CBS so someone might want to recheck the numbers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in650889.shtml
The legislation, which was two years in the making, passed on 69-37 vote and required a rare weekend session in the Senate to complete. It now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature.
I think the House vote was also bipartisan. Some view esp the first measure mentioned above as something that would help prevent a trade war... if you think other countries hate us because of Iraq that's nothing compared to what a trade war would do IMHO.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:39 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
So using CBS numbers, the massive corporate giveaway is basically revenue neutral and avoids a WTO trade war. Why was this terrible again? I forget. Oh, because Bush signed it. Of course, Congress passed by margins large enough to override a veto, had he vetoed it.

Does this thread have a point?
OldDude is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:58 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: st paul mn
Posts: 2,028
What? Again?

Originally posted by sfsdfd
Tax cuts are one of the primary election issues at the moment. Besides, you made this a political issue by referencing bombs and NASA's budget.

- David Stein
If I remove the tax cuts, NASA and the bombs, there is nothing left.
LtlPhysics is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 08:59 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Originally posted by OldDude
So using CBS numbers, the massive corporate giveaway is basically revenue neutral and avoids a WTO trade war. Why was this terrible again?
Because we're closing loopholes - i.e., preventing companies from taking advantage of bugs in the tax code - and then turning around and giving them all of that money anyway. It's like a bank saying, "Oh, we shouldn't have credited your account $100. Our mistake. We're taking it back. And by the way, here's $100."

While its net effect is zero (actually slightly adverse to the companies), it's because our government loses all of the money that it should have regained by closing loopholes.

I don't see why companies, including music companies (which are basically being a ridiculous nuisance while achieving record-breaking revenue), need $115 billion in new tax cuts. I <i>especially</i> don't see why we need to subsidize companies that decide to outsource.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:00 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Re: What? Again?

Originally posted by LtlPhysics
If I remove the tax cuts, NASA and the bombs, there is nothing left.
No, what I meant was: The issue itself is borderline election-related. You tipped it over the line (and into this forum) by also including mention of unrelated expenditures, which sounded like (perfectly valid) criticisms of the Bush administration.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:15 PM
  #17  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,299
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Because we're closing loopholes - i.e., preventing companies from taking advantage of bugs in the tax code - and then turning around and giving them all of that money anyway. It's like a bank saying, "Oh, we shouldn't have credited your account $100. Our mistake. We're taking it back. And by the way, here's $100."

While its net effect is zero (actually slightly adverse to the companies), it's because our government loses all of the money that it should have regained by closing loopholes.

I don't see why companies, including music companies (which are basically being a ridiculous nuisance while achieving record-breaking revenue), need $115 billion in new tax cuts. I <i>especially</i> don't see why we need to subsidize companies that decide to outsource.

- David Stein

Then completely change the tax code to level the field. Implement a BTA system, and I will be right with you. Until then, this is the right thing to do.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:28 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Originally posted by Pharoh
Then completely change the tax code to level the field. Implement a BTA system, and I will be right with you. Until then, this is the right thing to do.
So the choices are (a) status quo or (b) complete revolution? You can do better than this.

Really, can you see a justification for closing a tax loop that shouldn't have existed, and then giving all of that money back to the companies anyway?

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:33 PM
  #19  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Really, can you see a justification for closing a tax loop that shouldn't have existed, and then giving all of that money back to the companies anyway?
Giving money back to people and companies that earned it in the first place is always good. They can hire people, give their current employees bonuses, and spend money on business infrastructure. It doesn't go into the CEO's money reservoir in the basement of his house where he goes swimming in it.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:35 PM
  #20  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,299
Originally posted by sfsdfd
So the choices are (a) status quo or (b) complete revolution? You can do better than this.
Nah, it's Friday night, I'm home alone this evening, and I have to go into the office tomorrow. That's the best I can do tonight.



Really, can you see a justification for closing a tax loop that shouldn't have existed, and then giving all of that money back to the companies anyway?

- David Stein
Yes, based upon the revenue generation disparities between the United States and most of the rest of the World, I can see a justification for this.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:45 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: st paul mn
Posts: 2,028
What? Again?

Originally posted by sfsdfd
You tipped it over the line (and into this forum) by also including mention of unrelated expenditures, which sounded like (perfectly valid) criticisms of the Bush administration.

- David Stein
The tax cut would have been news, election or no.

The $440 billion military budget would pass, election or no.

NASA's pittance of a budget would remain the same, election or no.

Truth is, neither of them are NASA friendly. Bush hasn't spoken of it since that one press conference and Kerry won't mention it, preferring to spin a question off into friendly territory. The election doesn't matter, NASA is going to have four slow years.

But this thread has attracted some noise and looks political now.
LtlPhysics is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:46 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Originally posted by Pharoh
I'm home alone this evening, and I have to go into the office tomorrow.
Heh. Do what I do - I'm still here at the office, because when I leave tonight, the rest of the weekend will be work-free. (Well, job-free, anyway - I'll be studying for two exams next week.)
Originally posted by Pharoh
Yes, based upon the revenue generation disparities between the United States and most of the rest of the World, I can see a justification for this.
You're really floundering now.

In 1960, corporations shouldered 23% of the federal tax burden. In 1980, they shouldered 13%. Today, it's down to 8%. Since we were also the world's economic powerhouse in 1960, we should be able to increase it again without changing that position.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:49 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Re: What? Again?

Originally posted by LtlPhysics
The tax cut would have been news, election or no.

The $440 billion military budget would pass, election or no.

NASA's pittance of a budget would remain the same, election or no.
And I completely agree with you on all three points.
Originally posted by LtlPhysics
Truth is, neither of them are NASA friendly.
Yes, and it sucks. Similarly, neither of them is intent on shifting the tax burden back onto corporations (where it belongs), or repealing the DMCA or limiting the scandalous pushing of *AA agenda by bought-and-packaged Congressmen.

But there are battles that will be fought differently by these two chumps, so we have the potential to make at least <i>some</i> progress.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:50 PM
  #24  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Since we were also the world's economic powerhouse in 1960, we should be able to increase it again without changing that position.
The world is a lot different now than it was 40 years ago. Raising corporate taxes here would cause more unemployment, make the costs of items higher, and reduce foreign companies putting factories here and hiring american workers.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-22-04, 09:50 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Originally posted by sfsdfd
So the choices are (a) status quo or (b) complete revolution? You can do better than this.

Really, can you see a justification for closing a tax loop that shouldn't have existed, and then giving all of that money back to the companies anyway?

- David Stein
Yeah, I can. Closing loopholes that only some can take advantage of then lowering overall tax rates levels the playing field for everybody instead of special rules for those who know the loopholes.

Unfortunately, it looks like Congress (not Bush) crafted plenty of new pork that could be regarded as new loopholes. Bush's choice is to sign it all or veto it all, since the line item veto was ruled out by judges who thought pork-killing would be unconstitutional.

Honestly from the limited review in the article, I have no clue whether overall fairness has been increased or decreased, and I probably don't wish to wade through 10,000 pages or whatever it is to figure it out.
OldDude is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.