• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP blocks bill that would curb tax breaks for firms moving operations overseas

Why should a story have sides? There's only facts. Facts don't have sides, don't have allegiance. It's silly to think that stories have two sides. They only have one, the truth.
 
Paschendale said:
Why should a story have sides? There's only facts. Facts don't have sides, don't have allegiance. It's silly to think that stories have two sides. They only have one, the truth.
Click to expand...
Sides haves facts. Maybe there is no other side of the story. Did you click on the link? It didn't contain the entire text of the bill.
 
Perhaps Im am naive but why do we really need to complicate our tax code by allowing deductions to begin with? All businesses have expenses and that is an expected part of having a business. It just seems that deductions are a means for businesses who better understand tax law to have a better advantage. Would it not make as much sense in the end to either remove deductions completely or even remove business taxes altogether and have the tax only applied to an individuals income from said business?

Perhaps someone could explain to me the advantages of having corporate taxes and/or business deductions.
 
Paschendale said:
Why should a story have sides? There's only facts. Facts don't have sides, don't have allegiance. It's silly to think that stories have two sides. They only have one, the truth.
Click to expand...

Wow, that ignores the reality that reporters and editors are human and have bias. The other side are the facts, the truths that have been ignored to tell the story in such a way that it fits the reporter's/editorialist's point of view.

In this case, a good starting question to ask is, "what else did the bill do?". Google the definition of poison pill as regards to legislation. It's an old tactic, you see it all the time, especially around election season.
 
Last edited:
I read in another article (that I can't find right now) that the Republicans wanted to add some amendments and were denied.
 
azgreg said:
I read in another article (that I can't find right now) that the Republicans wanted to add some amendments and were denied.
Click to expand...

What kind of amendments?Amendments to neuter the bill with loop holes?
 
Baralis said:
Perhaps Im am naive but why do we really need to complicate our tax code by allowing deductions to begin with? All businesses have expenses and that is an expected part of having a business. It just seems that deductions are a means for businesses who better understand tax law to have a better advantage. Would it not make as much sense in the end to either remove deductions completely or even remove business taxes altogether and have the tax only applied to an individuals income from said business?

Perhaps someone could explain to me the advantages of having corporate taxes and/or business deductions.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a business deduction is?
 
jamesrage said:
What kind of amendments?Amendments to neuter the bill with loop holes?
Click to expand...

I don't know. When I went to look at the bill tracker my eyes started to bleed trying to track everything down.
 
Winchester said:
Do you understand what a business deduction is?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I have owned a business in the past and have used the deductions myself. I fully understand the benefits these deductions have for the business themselves but I was looking for the advantages/disadvantages these deductions have on our economy as a whole. What is the point to them from the larger picture?
 
mpg said:
Sides haves facts. Maybe there is no other side of the story. Did you click on the link? It didn't contain the entire text of the bill.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really talking about the content of your link. I was talking about your interpretation of it. Why do you think there's anything other than the actual realities that encompasses all the facts? Any interpretation that doesn't conform to all the facts is simply wrong.

clownboy said:
Wow, that ignores the reality that reporters and editors are human and have bias. The other side are the facts, the truths that have been ignored to tell the story in such a way that it fits the reporter's/editorialist's point of view.

In this case, a good starting question to ask is, "what else did the bill do?". Google the definition of poison pill as regards to legislation. It's an old tactic, you see it all the time, especially around election season.
Click to expand...

I'm not even really talking about the bill. I'm talking about the bizarre idea that there really are two sides to every story. There aren't. There's only reality.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm not even really talking about the bill. I'm talking about the bizarre idea that there really are two sides to every story. There aren't. There's only reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that ignores that there is a story teller involved.
 
This is quite traitorous of Republicans. There shouldn't be tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas to begin with, but to actually defend and protect them?
 
Baralis said:
Absolutely, I have owned a business in the past and have used the deductions myself. I fully understand the benefits these deductions have for the business themselves but I was looking for the advantages/disadvantages these deductions have on our economy as a whole. What is the point to them from the larger picture?
Click to expand...

The point of them is to determine a bushiness net income (or loss). I guess if you don't want to tax business then I guess they aren't important for tax purposes anymore. Keep in mind the net income for most business if not directly reported on the owners tax return is reported via a pass-through entity so if you're going to just tax individuals one is still going to need to take business deductions into consideration.

You can't possibly mean tax them on their gross receipts can you?
 
clownboy said:
Wow, that ignores the reality that reporters and editors are human and have bias. The other side are the facts, the truths that have been ignored to tell the story in such a way that it fits the reporter's/editorialist's point of view.

In this case, a good starting question to ask is, "what else did the bill do?". Google the definition of poison pill as regards to legislation. It's an old tactic, you see it all the time, especially around election season.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is then, what are the poison pills? That was what I wondered when I first heard this story. It's either that, or nobody wants to go back to the TP in their district and say they voted on anything even remotely favored by Democrats.
 
reinoe said:
This is quite traitorous of Republicans. There shouldn't be tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas to begin with, but to actually defend and protect them?
Click to expand...

On the surface, it appears so. Shipping jobs overseas doesn't help anybody in any districts.
 
rocket88 said:
It's either that, or nobody wants to go back to the TP in their district and say they voted on anything even remotely favored by Democrats.
Click to expand...
That's probably the case at this point.
 
mpg said:
Sides haves facts. Maybe there is no other side of the story. Did you click on the link? It didn't contain the entire text of the bill.
Click to expand...

That is why most bills are voted against by either side. It isn't the common sense part of the bill that makes Senators vote against it, it's usually the add-on BS to a bill that garners the nay votes.

And yes, there are facts on both sides of any issue. As for this one, I haven't heard anything, so I don't know.
 
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if a company that moves its operations overseas, either completely or in part, is still entitled to tax breaks/deductions, doesn't that imply that the company is paying business taxes in the US? If so, why should they be denied deductions on the taxes they pay?
 
mpg said:
GOP blocks tax hike on firms moving overseas - US News

Has anyone heard the Republican side of the story?
Click to expand...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blocked Republicans from offering amendments to the bill, which is why they voted against advancing the bill.

as long as harry reid continues his draconian rule of the senate bills will continue to get blocked. this is the majority of reason that these bills are being filibustered.
is that reid refuses to allow republicans to submit amendments to the bill.

so reid can sit on it and spin.
 
Baralis said:
Perhaps Im am naive but why do we really need to complicate our tax code by allowing deductions to begin with?
Click to expand...
"Need" might be a strong word.

A lot of tax deductions are put in to encourage people to do something, or to make it easier to do something. For example, if we want to encourage people to invest, we reduce the capital gains tax. The mortgage deduction is another example of using the tax code to encourage home ownership.

Unfortunately, another reason is that companies or specific groups want to pay lower taxes. So they wine and dine a few legislators, and get their deductions put in.

Tax reform sounds like a no-brainer, but every tax deduction and cut has developed its own constituencies. Unfortunately, that means that if you take out the mortgage deduction, you're going to have over half the country screaming to put it back in. I.e. you won't have a clean slate for long. ;)
 
Winchester said:
The point of them is to determine a bushiness net income (or loss). I guess if you don't want to tax business then I guess they aren't important for tax purposes anymore. Keep in mind the net income for most business if not directly reported on the owners tax return is reported via a pass-through entity so if you're going to just tax individuals one is still going to need to take business deductions into consideration.

You can't possibly mean tax them on their gross receipts can you?
Click to expand...


I believe I understand what you are meaning. Me I like simple, I believe simple is better for everyone. My first choice would be to remove business taxes all together but aside from that if you must tax them I think a small percent tax would suffice. I believe this could be on gross earnings as things would adjust and work themselves out to accommodate this.
 
ludin said:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blocked Republicans from offering amendments to the bill, which is why they voted against advancing the bill. as long as harry reid continues his draconian rule of the senate bills will continue to get blocked.
Click to expand...
*shrug* It's no worse than the Hastert Rule, or filibusters. Or, inserting unrelated amendments into a bill.

This is just how legislatures work. It's a bit messy, but ultimately you give a little, you get a little, and the bill gets passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom