Tax cuts for millionaires - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/22/2004 04:47:29 PM · #1

Bush quietly signs corporate tax cuts
May mend trade row with EU; Bi-partisian critics say it's filled with special interest give-aways.
October 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EDT

Originally posted by :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Without fanfare, President George W. Bush signed into law Friday a nearly $140 billion corporate tax cut bill derided by both Democratic presidential rival John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain as a giveaway to special interests.

Bush signed the measure into law aboard Air Force One en route to a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, forgoing a public signing ceremony that would have attracted attention to the tax cuts less than two weeks before Election Day.

The White House had marked the signing of Bush's other major tax bills with lavish public ceremonies. This one was marked with a one-paragraph statement by the press secretary.

Asked why there was no signing ceremony for the corporate tax bill, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: "There are a variety of ways the president signs legislation."

The corporate tax bill aims to end a trade fight with the European Union by repealing U.S. export tax subsidies that violate global trade rules.

But the $140 billion in new business tax breaks included many special interest provisions sharply criticized by public interest groups and fiscal conservatives, which congressional aides said explained Bush's decision to sign it in private.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is campaigning for Bush, had called the measure "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen."

Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said: "George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas."

Singer said the Massachusetts senator's first budget, if elected, would call for the repeal of "all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill."

But the White House's Buchan defended the measure: "The president believes it will help American workers and help improve the competitiveness of American manufacturers and other job creators."

The legislation would repeal illegal export subsidies and lower taxes rates for domestic manufacturers to 32 percent from the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

The bill also includes a $10 billion industry-financed buyout for tobacco farmers.

The bill also includes tax breaks for U.S. multinational companies, some of which critics say will encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.

A one-year tax holiday for multinationals was included that will allow them to return billions of dollars in profits back to the United States at a dramatically lower 5.25 percent rate instead of the normal 35 percent top corporate rate.

Copyright 2004 Reuters All rights reserved.

Again I implore everyone to watch or read The Corporation.

While our economy declines and our debt grows; this is insanity.

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 16:55:16.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

10/22/2004 05:30:20 PM · #2

In case you all have forgotten basic Civics ... in order for the bill to be signed, it had to have been passed by both the Senate and the House. So before we go too far deriding Bush, we'd better start with a majority of Senators and Congressmen who passed it.

There, that ought to get the thread going.

Russell2566

10/22/2004 05:33:07 PM · #3

I don't see whats so objectionable about cutting taxes for the rich anyway. They are the ones paying for everything and rumor has it, it's their money. How about we cut some more government give away programs and let more people keep even more of their money.

I could hire another employee if I had lower taxes I bet. Now I'm small so 1 more employee is a big upgrade for me, but thats one more person that can feed his family and afford housing that mayve couldn't before...

10/22/2004 05:44:26 PM · #4

In a perfect world Russell maybe that would happen. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world; money and power corrupt.

As we speak, Phil Knight (CEO Nike) is making billions from kids in 3rd world countries working for pennies an hour or per unit.
He could bring all that labor to the US and create tons of jobs for Americans but he does not. You think Nike is hurting for profit and they need that cheap labor? I think not.

That same principle goes for many other huge name brand corporations who do most of there production in 3rd world countries.

Again, watch or read The Corporation to gain incite on how corporations control the world.

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

10/22/2004 06:46:33 PM · #5

What a joke... our tax system is unfair... why should someone pay more just because they are more successful? you want to punish people for success? Outlandish! 1% of the top money earners pay 5% of the taxes. 5% of the top income earners pay 10% of the taxes... and totaled 20% of the top income earners pay 80% of the taxes...

how completely unfair! I am not rich... I earn a middle class wage... but the rich are punished for being rich.. it's unfaior and Un-American.. our founding fathers would be throwing tea in the harbor if they saw what our tax system has become! So poor people quit whining like babies, get off your duffs and go become successfull.. once you get rich you can get punished for all of your hard work as well!

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 18:47:08.

10/22/2004 07:26:00 PM · #6

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Care to comment on the actual subject matter of the article?

10/22/2004 07:30:26 PM · #7

There are a lot of scum corporations out there, including Nike, but there are a lot of good ones too.
A very large corporation pays me a great salary, provides me awesome benifits, will pay for my masters degree when I get off my ass and go back to school, and the relatively small branch that I work for donated over a million dollars to local charities last year.
They shouldn't have to pay higher tax rates just because they are successful.

10/22/2004 07:33:18 PM · #8

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

1. you keep forgetting america isn't a socialist country. why would a company create shoes at a much higher cost in america when they could do it elsewhere for much less money?

2. if kerry and other democrats would stop suggesting minimum wage hikes maybe companies would be able to bring factories back to the us once their profits could overcome the increase in minimum wage

3. pennies a day to you may be a significant amount of money to someone else in another part of the world, and if we started paying most of those people minimum wage from america, probably everyone in their country would go run to the shoe factory to get a high paying job, thus ruining that country's people

4. i don't know which country you're talking about, but unemployment rates there are most likely much higher than here in the states so is it really a bad thing to help the poor across the world find a job?

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

10/22/2004 07:37:16 PM · #9

Achiral, they haven't forgotten we are not a socialist country.. they know we are are not and that's what makes them so mad... they want us to be socialists and continue trying to force feed us their socialist agenda, even though they know the majority doesn't believe in such socialist lunacy

10/22/2004 07:42:42 PM · #10

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
In a perfect world Russell maybe that would happen. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world; money and power corrupt.

As we speak, Phil Knight (CEO Nike) is making billions from kids in 3rd world countries working for pennies an hour or per unit.
He could bring all that labor to the US and create tons of jobs for Americans but he does not. You think Nike is hurting for profit and they need that cheap labor? I think not.

That same principle goes for many other huge name brand corporations who do most of there production in 3rd world countries.

Again, watch or read The Corporation to gain incite on how corporations control the world.

1. you keep forgetting america isn't a socialist country. why would a company create shoes at a much higher cost in america when they could do it elsewhere for much less money?

2. if kerry and other democrats would stop suggesting minimum wage hikes maybe companies would be able to bring factories back to the us once their profits could overcome the increase in minimum wage

3. pennies a day to you may be a significant amount of money to someone else in another part of the world, and if we started paying most of those people minimum wage from america, probably everyone in their country would go run to the shoe factory to get a high paying job, thus ruining that country's people

4. i don't know which country you're talking about, but unemployment rates there are most likely much higher than here in the states so is it really a bad thing to help the poor across the world find a job?

1. Because its the RIGHT thing to do. The problems with everyone is they are motivated purely by profit and money; this is why our grandchildren will live in a poisoned world.

2. The minimum wage in America is hardly livable, it needs to go up.

As for the rest The Corporation would do a far better job of filling in your gaps in knowledge on the subject than I could.

10/22/2004 07:46:38 PM · #11

Here is a scenario for you. I live in China right now as an English teacher, and communicate on a daily basis with Chinese friends and officials.

For English teachers in Beijing, where cost of living is very high for China, the average pay for a teacher is 2000 yuan/month, or $250 US/month. This translates to 3000 US a year for a salary, which sounds like nothing to you but is actually a load of money here and one which you can live comfortably on because of the cost of living differences between here and america. the average pay for someone teaching outside of beijing is around 1200 yuan/month or 150 US

China also has an unemployment rate of 4.1%. You're probably thinking, wow, they're doing so much better than the US, until you realize that this ends up being 53 million people without jobs, which is a far cry from the states.

So say we stopped "taking advantage" of people across the world, specifically China and said we're going to put a Nike factory in your country and pay people 5.15/hour to make shoes. Anually, 5.15/hour translates to 9888 US a year. Do you really think there would be any more teachers if they could just sit and make shoes all day and make three times what they were making before? no

and do you really think that the chinese government would allow this to happen? no

stop simplifying issues please

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 19:51:35.

10/22/2004 07:51:38 PM · #12

Originally posted by achiral:

Here is a scenario for you. I live in China right now as an English teacher, and communicate on a daily basis with Chinese friends and officials.

For English teachers in Beijing, where cost of living is very high for China, the average pay for a teacher is 2000 yuan/month, or $250 US/month. This translates to 3000 US a year for a salary, which sounds like nothing to you but is actually a load of money here and one which you can live comfortably on because of the cost of living differences between here and america.

China also has an unemployment rate of 4.1%. You're probably thinking, wow, they're doing so much better than the US, until you realize that this ends up being 53 million people without jobs, which is a far cry from the states.

So say we stopped "taking advantage" of people across the world, specifically China and said we're going to put a Nike factory in your country and pay people 5.15/hour to make shoes. Anually, 5.15/hour translates to 9888 US a year. Do you really think there would be any more teachers if they could just sit and make shoes all day and make three times what they were making before? no

and do you really think that the chinese government would allow this to happen? no

stop simplifying issues please

Your whole premise is flawed; China is not a 3rd world country.

10/22/2004 07:57:30 PM · #13

you've obviously never been to china, it's most definitely a 3rd country...the only way it might not qualify is that the birth rate isn't extremely high here but that's only because of gov't policy.

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 20:06:40.

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

10/22/2004 08:01:44 PM · #14

You'll also find that while not all, a great many of the people earning minimum wage are at that level because they choose to be at that level.. you'll find amoungst them that many of them were lazy and dropped out of school, or drug addicts that have been wasting their lives away... or ex-cons that can't get better jobs either because they have no desire to better themselves, or their crimes were so bad they should not even be oback on the streets... some of the minimum wage earners are content earning minimum wage and getting food stamps to survive...

now don't get me wrong... not all minimum wage earners fall into these catagories, MANY great people start at this level and work towards a better future... and those people do not stay at minimum wage.. they climb the ladder of success and earn more money as their skills and knowledge increases, because they, unlike those stagnating at the minimum, put forth an effort to achieve success ... give me ANY man with desire to be something better... in 4 years I will put him through trade school and make an electrician out him... yes he starts out making low scale... but if he has the desire and work ethic he can earn a great living... but it takes EFFORT on HIS part... nothing should be free in this world... you have to earn your way as an individual

10/22/2004 08:07:39 PM · #15

Regardless of what you may see or think, China is not a 3rd world country.

In fact they are 2nd only to the US on GDP and #1 in industrial production growth rate of any country in the world.

10/22/2004 08:11:27 PM · #16

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Regardless of what you may see or think, China is not a 3rd world country.

In fact they are 2nd only to the US on GDP and #1 in industrial production growth rate of any country in the world.

//www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=9102

man you really do like to sipmlify things...gdp has little to do with being a third world country. why don't you learn about 3rd world before you start talking about it? it would help this debate a lot.

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 20:17:00.

10/22/2004 08:14:27 PM · #17

We are getting off topic.

Is it ok for the US, who has the most debt of any country in the world and is in the middle of 2 wars, to give 140 BILLION away to millionaire and billionaire corporations?

Originally posted by article:

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is campaigning for Bush, had called the measure "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen."

Also, this is rediculous:

Originally posted by Article:

A one-year tax holiday for multinationals was included that will allow them to return billions of dollars in profits back to the United States at a dramatically lower 5.25 percent rate instead of the normal 35 percent top corporate rate.

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 20:18:39.

10/22/2004 08:25:13 PM · #18

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

We are getting off topic.

Is it ok for the US, who has the most debt of any country in the world and is in the middle of 2 wars, to give 140 BILLION away to millionaire and billionaire corporations?

Originally posted by article:
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is campaigning for Bush, had called the measure "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen."

Also, this is rediculous:

Originally posted by Article:
A one-year tax holiday for multinationals was included that will allow them to return billions of dollars in profits back to the United States at a dramatically lower 5.25 percent rate instead of the normal 35 percent top corporate rate.

take a class in macro economics, you will be amazed at how you have tried to simplify such a big problem into one sentence, and how your question is unanswerable because of the simplification

10/22/2004 08:36:34 PM · #19

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

1. There is nothing wrong with being motivated to make money and afford nice things. There is a lot wrong with sitting around and expecting the government take care of you.

2. If you are making minimum wage and you are not still in high school, you need to get some job skills or be willing to work a little harder. Taco Bell pays $7/hour here and labor in Arizona is suppose to be pretty cheap.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

10/22/2004 08:43:13 PM · #20

For some reason, MadMordegon seems to think that the government is somehow saving me from corruption by taking my money in taxes. On the other hand, I think that government legislators should be part-time, and paid very little. I think I should be able to keep more of my money. I worked hard for it. I can take care of myself and my family much better (and cheaper) than the government can. I also think (I'll be flamed for this, I'm sure) that people who make minimum wage should learn some skills to get a better job. I did it, paying my way through college on *gasp* 6.25 an hour. I do not think we should alter the economic laws to pay unskilled labor more than they are worth. I feel the same way about unions.

Finally, I think Mad should get a hobby.

10/22/2004 08:59:47 PM · #21

Learning and studying life and the world around me is my hobby.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/22/2004 09:04:49 PM · #22

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Learning and studying life and the world around me is my hobby.

You're much better at photography...

(note, just a light hearted joke)

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/22/2004 09:07:18 PM · #23

Originally posted by achiral:

take a class in macro economics, you will be amazed at how you have tried to simplify such a big problem into one sentence, and how your question is unanswerable because of the simplification

Why don't you explain the macro economic principles so that we can understand it better. The point that MadMordegon is making is that we are increasing our national debt even more with this tax giveaway to the rich. We already have some astronomical debt of around 11 trillion dollars (?). Now, I know enough about economics that as an individual I can't keep borrowing from the future, or my children's future and expect that at some time I will pull out of it, since the hole keeps getting bigger and bigger. (Who is paying for the war in Iraq anyway, and where are we getting the money from?) So can you explain from the macro economic point of view why this huge debt is such a good thing?