Sirhan, Sirhan? .....RFK assassination? ......followed by the most infamous Democratic convention in modern history? Troll all you like NotSoBright but you not understanding anything is not my problem.
Sorry Brooklyn, you seem to know a lot of Kurd-Turkish history, not so much American history (to put it in simple English)
Looking up single payer health care it seems to be the most like Australia's and they're doing ok. As far as taxing the top 1% a little more, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland and France are some of countries with higher tax rates for their top 1% than what we have and some are more than what's proposed. Pretty much no one has a higher corporate tax than the U.S. and big business is still making a fortune so I doubt an extra 2% will be the breaking point to make them close up shop. We survived 8 years with Bush Jr and depending on your political leanings survived 8 years with Obama so I'm pretty confident that we're a resilient enough people to survive free health care and free state college. For about 2K a year (single making less than 6 figures) I get free health care, no deductible and my kids go to college for free? yes please. We hadn't even dipped into a single provider being able to negotiate drug prices so that we're no longer pay more for RX drugs than every other country. Big Government isn't always the answer but neither is Big Business. Big Business screwed alot of people with the mortgage crisis but it also was responsible for the technology advancements we see today (with some help with the gvt). IMO Some things shouldn't be run like a business that's trying to make a profit. My health and my education are two of those things. So is the prison system but that's a rant for another time.
We already have a big corporate inversion problem. Taxing corporations more and adding additional expenses will only make it worse.
Yes, many companies take advantage of tax loopholes. I would rather close the loopholes then let them dictate the direction of our nation.
The US doesn't have the authority to tell companies where they are to do business from. It's not a loophole, it's the free market in a global economy.
So true. That is my one weakness and I will read about American history in detail before I turn 40 years old. 3 more years to go for me. I will make it happen.
If you can save billions by changing a your mailing addy (simplified) then yeah, it's a loophole. Look, I'm not saying that we go back to the insanely high rates of Regan's first term but a couple of points and a couple of closed loopholes aren't going to mean the end to our democracy. No chicken little, the sky is not falling.
In Reagans first term the global market was no where near the reality it is today. It's much easier for corporations to move their corporate HQ to other countries with lower corporate tax rates today. What kind of law are you going to implement to stop that?
I'm too green (hahah) to post links but here are some excerpts about new laws that have been passed as well as what Germany does to mitigate the problem. The new rules build on existing tax laws that prevent companies from escaping the U.S. tax system unless they merge with a foreign firm. Current law allows inversions to proceed as long as the U.S. company’s shareholders own less than 80% of the combined company. The rules announced on Thursday go after a technique known as “stuffing,” in which the non-U. S. company is artificially made bigger before a merger to comply with that 80% threshold. They also make it harder for companies to do what the Treasury calls “cherry-picking,” which is finding an address in a country with a favorable tax treaty. They will instead be more limited to taking new addresses in the country where the merger partner is organized. ______________________________________________________________________________________ A more plausible alternative is to follow the lead of countries like Germany and Japan and adopt a hybrid territorial system. Although the details are complicated, you’d start with the “territorial” principle that profits would be taxed where they’re earned. But since any territorial system is vulnerable to tax-avoidance schemes—like shifting income abroad to make it look as if profits were being earned abroad—you’d also need tough anti-abuse provisions, like taxing at least a fixed percentage of foreign earnings and limiting companies’ ability to channel income to subsidiaries in low-tax countries. And, as part of any such change, companies should be required to pay taxes on all the cash they’re currently holding abroad. In theory, such a system could keep companies (and more of their workers) at home and bring foreign earnings back, without putting a real dent in U.S. tax revenue. This strategy also has some bipartisan appeal; versions of this type of reform have been offered by both the Obama Administration and Republicans in Congress.
I would like to read the article if you could post it. here's one from another angle http://www.economist.com/news/leade...d-no-substitute-corporate-tax-reform-how-stop
I cant put any links up bc I don't have enough posts but you can fill in the blanks newyorker. /magazine/2016/01/11/why-firms-are-fleeing wsj. /articles/u-s-unveils-rules-to-make-corporate-inversions-more-difficult-1447970935
thanks. unfortunately the second one required a subscription to read so I didn't read it. sounds complicated and very difficult to enforce. seems much more simple to just lower corporate taxes and make doing business here more competitive. but I'm a simple dude. "The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered" -Thomas Paine
Yup. The companies moving their headquarters going overseas still have to pay US taxes on US based income.
LMAO at the clowns here who yesterday were swallowing whole the notion that HRC benefitted substantially from coin flips that she won all of! Of course some were people who loved to believe Planned Parenthood was selling fetus parts for a profit, so there is a pattern there. Did Hillary Clinton win the Iowa caucuses thanks to coin flips? Coin flips -- specifically "games of chance" -- are used in rare circumstances at precinct caucuses to adjudicate ties or resolve issues created by rounding errors ( CNN)—Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday after topping Democratic rival Bernie Sanders by the skin-of-her-teeth margin of 49.9% to 49.6%. There's been some confusion about how much of a role -- if any -- coin flips played in determining who won delegates. Coin flips -- specifically "games of chance" -- are used in rare circumstances at precinct caucuses to adjudicate ties or resolve issues created by rounding errors. At stake at these precinct-level coin flips is the one remaining slot in that precinct for a campaign to send a delegate to attend that precinct's county convention. Coin flips are not used to decide which candidate wins a state convention delegate or national convention delegate. How many coin flips were there on Monday night? The Iowa Democratic Party does not have comprehensive records on how many coin flips/games of chance were held Monday evening. However, they do have partial records. More than half of the 1,681 Democratic caucuses held Monday night used a new Microsoft reporting app. Of those, there were exactly seven county delegates determined by coin flip. The remaining precincts did not use the Microsoft app, and instead used traditional phone-line reporting to transmit results. In these precincts, there no are records of how many coin flips occurred. There's only anecdotal information on these precincts. Who won these coin flips? Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them. So it's incorrect to say that Clinton won every coin flip. As for the less-than-half of the precincts that didn't use the Microsoft app, it's unclear how many coin flips took place. Only anecdotal information is available on these flips, such as web videos that circulated Monday night. Did Clinton win the Iowa caucuses thanks to coin flips? Clinton won the Iowa caucuses by the equivalent of about four state delegates. If the anecdotal evidence of Clinton winning six coin flips is correct, she would have won six county delegates through coin flips (setting aside the fact that party records show Sanders also won six county delegates as a result of coin flips). There is not a one-to-one correlation between county delegates and state delegates, or to national convention delegates. Based on the party's delegate selection rules, a single county delegate represents a tiny fraction of a state convention delegate (the exact ratio is difficult to calculate because it varies from county to county). Norm Sterzenbach, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party who oversaw the party's 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses, told CNN: "I can say with almost absolutely certainty this election would not have been changed because of the coin flips. It would take a very large number of these to make that kind of impact, and one candidate would have to win them all. Our empirical evidence and anecdotal information shows that one candidate didn't win them all, and that coin flips are not that frequent." Sterzenbach has worked with the Iowa caucuses since 2000. He is not aligned with any 2016 campaign, has not endorsed a candidate, and did not caucus for any 2016 candidate. He says that four state delegate equivalents may seem like a small amount, but that it would take "a lot" of county delegates to amount to four state delegates. Sterzenbach said based on his recollection, there seemed to have been more instances of coin flips being held in 2008 than in 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html debunking these Hillary Haters is like shooting fish in a barrel.
or maybe Iowa could drop the shady behind the curtain coin flip BS... I'd say the people we should be laughing at is them either way not good for Hillary that she's been the defacto democratic nominee for like the past 8 years and a crusty old maple syrup drinking socialist who just joined the party a few months ago pretty much tied her in the very 1st primary contest. what does that say about how much people want her to be President? Democrats: "SOMEONE, anyone! please run against Hillary!! Crazy Bernie Sanders? okay what the hell" but she's got a great chance of winning the presidency in the general election
Meh. At this point the odds are that Clinton will be the next president. Elections are usually about choosing the lesser of two evils. Nothing new there. Sanders has the benefit of not having been attacked by the GOP and their running dogs for the last 25 years. In fact they are hoping he will be the Democratic nominee, and they do that for a reason. It's striking how many of the talking points from the Sanders people mirror GOP criticisms. And how much of it is like a looking glass reflection of the Trump campaign. Plus Sanders supporters prefer ideological purity, but that is generally a losing approach to the general election. Which is why Ted Cruz has no real chance. Iowa was tailor made for Sanders. and NH is his neighbor. I doubt you see it that close once it gets to more diverse states.
