It does seem wrong that any taxable entity should not have a taxable event enter the system. If the transaction occurs overseas, then the event didn't occur here and shouldn't be a concern for US tax policy. If a taxable event never occurs due to IRC allowances, then that is money that is kept form the US market. If a company accounts for a taxable event which occurs in the US, then that money reenters the market and is available for exchange, whether through reinvesting or through a reduction in the tax burden on non-corporate entities.
I know this is an attempt to bolster the Keynesian argument, but I just don't see how this specific example of aggregation and market exchange is bad for either the individual or corporate taxpayer.
While I am concerned that there may be the possibility of price increases due to the shutting down of loopholes, it also seems like there would be a shift in the balance of the tax burden on individual taxpayers. In other words, because corporate taxes are now being paid, the GDP can be supported by individual wealth rather than corporate wealth and holdings.
I'm pretty sure this is a Keynesian principle, and I know that there are a lot that disagree with the aggregate theories, but in this case it certainly seems that it would work. My understanding is that this is most effective if there are enough taxpayers who make a taxable, not gross, income below the "high income" threshold so that they benefit from tax breaks as well as make a contribution to the aggregate change in GDP.
Additionally, the research and development breaks for companies under the loophole would be a significant offset. Thus, it *seems* that a combination of the aggregates plus offsets would have a positive net effect on GDP.
I'd love to hear the comments of an actual economist, rather than my armchair wranglings.
Could someone please link to posts on this site that talk about any of the following:
* Reverence
* Hope
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Gratitude
I haven't seen much of this written, I don't believe it exists, and I would like to actually see where these topics have been spoken about. This is 1/3 of the total 9/12 principles, yet I don't know that these are themes that are mentioned. If you've written about them, please post.
The reason it seems convoluted is because YOU ARE NOT READING LEGISLATION! You are only reading what is essentially an editing of the first draft of the bill that was presented to the full House for a vote. This bill may or may not have actually been ever presented in committee, so this may be the first time anyone has ever seen the bill other than its original drafters.You are actually witnessing the democratic process in action. The value of any legislation is in first, its plain meaning, second, its legislative history, and finally, its purpose and intent. Each of these elements must be present for a bill to stand up to the exhaustive process which it must endure, i.e., Congressional approval, Executive approval, and survival in the courts. You are blessed to live in a day where you can hop on the internet and look at the legislative process in action, and you are making an assumption about about a bill based on the first test in a line of tests, the plain meaning standard? I suggest that you take the time to read a basic book on civics, then go to a session of your local government. I'll even recommend a good book for a basic lesson on legislative process, "The Dance of Legislation" by Eric Redman. It is a simple read and explains how a bill becomes a law.
You are aware that there are no sections 150-160 of HR1388ER, which is the actual bill. What you are quoting is drafting history. You might want to look up "Schoolhouse Rock" for a better understanding than you now have of how the legislative process works, or at least how to read legislation.
For helping the country have one of the times of greatest prosperity it has seen in decades? For helping lower the number of people dependent on social programs? For actually catching and prosecuting the individuals responsible for terrorist attacks that happened during that administration? Why are you bitter about those things?
You posted the link, but did you even bother to read it? I don't think that you did. The story that you linked to says that:
"When told of the flight, President Barack Obama was furious, a White House official said on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations."
Someone made a mistake. I think the bigger question right now is what do we do with an ex-President, an ex-Vice President, and their other war criminal confederates who are still out on the loose? That's a bit bigger than this mistake, wouldn't you say?
If Glenn Beck is against government taxation and global warming, why does he accept money from companies that advertise use of taxpayer money for their services which curb the effects of global warming? In Central Pennsylvania, Beck is supported by construction companies and general home improvement service providers who state in their advertisements that they are using taxpayer dollars for "energy auditing" and "ECO plumbing". Shouldn't Beck be the first to stand up to these people and not support their business by not having them advertise on his show?
Isn't it possible that the artist is being ironic by making a pictorial commentary on the allegations that people like Beck make, i.e. that there is a Messianic element to the President? People on this board SAY the exact same thing that this artist has now depicted in a picture. Why is there such a leap to the conclusion that any liberal would support this. I think it is especially shameful that people who are supposed to be art educators have not pointed this possible connection out.
Because, sadly, I have been forced to choose to pick a side in the political dickering that goes on in this country. I was a registered independent for over 12 years, but no longer. I would like to have intelligent discourse with people whose opinions differ from mine. Unfortunately, there is very little interest in that here. I've been appreciative of those who have been willing to be engaging, but I've also been called scum and lazy as a response to a post, which I don't appreciate. If you as ultra conservatives want to win an election again, you need to be more willing to open up and discuss real issues. I have attended some of the most conservative undergraduate and independent graduate schools in the country and I am not tied to down to any one party or view. I want this country to be the best it can, but I also want the people in it to be the best they can. Unfortunately, people like yourself only want to complain and to exclude. Good luck.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Invention