• 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!

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

Umm.. May I ask what an "unfunded tax cut", is?


Tim-

An unfunded tax cut is one where there is no funding mechanism to offset the decrease in revenues to our budget. The Reaganomics (trickle down) theory was that the tax cuts given to the wealthy would result in more jobs and increased revenue. We have 30 years experience now to show that it doesn't work. It has only created short term bubbles followed by recession and skyrocketing debt.
 
It's quite amazing, isn't it? While they attack teachers for making $50k and having good benefits, they'll graze over this like it didn't happen.

Maybe you aren't getting it. Government is the institution that is doing this. Libertarians do not gloss over their perceived need to drastically reduce the size/scope of government, and to absolutely get it out of the business of corporate welfare. And conservatives on this forum *routinely* debate against government redistribution of wealth. To suggest otherwise is a lie.
Liberals on the other hand routinely support significant government direct involvement in the economy (health care, retirement, etc.).

This is a situation most in-line with liberal debate on these forums. It's most opposed by libertarian, and slightly less so, conservatives.

Now, *why* do governments, both liberal and conservative majority, sometimes support such corporate welfare? They do it to keep them in their state, to get *MORE TAX REVENUE* to pay their budgets (including teachers). This is business as usual. The only way to stop it, is top limit government power to do this. Hmm, who do we sound like now? Limit government power? Hot damn those libertarians got it right?
 
An unfunded tax cut is one where there is no funding mechanism to offset the decrease in revenues to our budget. The Reaganomics (trickle down) theory was that the tax cuts given to the wealthy would result in more jobs and increased revenue. We have 30 years experience now to show that it doesn't work. It has only created short term bubbles followed by recession and skyrocketing debt.

So then, a funded tax cut would be one that is accompanied by a spending cut? Give out 400 billion in tax cuts, we must cut spending by at least this much, correct? Conversely, an unfunded tax cut, is a tax cut without a reduction in spending? Seems like a plausible economic mechanism, however, how do you deal with an unfunded tax increase if you're a government? What would that look like? :)

Tax cuts, and tax increases effect whom, and why? The whom, is always at the center in economic discussions, the effects of tax increases, and tax cuts, also take center stage.

Are you a shopper? Do you ever buy anything that isn't on-sale? Why do you suppose that almost always, something is on-sale, and if it's not on-sale, what do you suppose is the common behavior of retail shoppers, and why isn't it on-sale?? In some way, if not precisely, Reagan's policy regarding tax cuts resembled this consumerist, axiomatic philosophy. The ONLY time this logic is not true is when there is a limited supply, and demand is high. How would you apply supply and demand if you were to compare it next to how our system of government works? :)


Tim-
 
So then, a funded tax cut would be one that is accompanied by a spending cut? Give out 400 billion in tax cuts, we must cut spending by at least this much, correct?

Or, another revenue source failing spending cuts which neither party has done.

Conversely, an unfunded tax cut, is a tax cut without a reduction in spending?

Or, another revenue source failing spending cuts which neither party has done.

Seems like a plausible economic mechanism, however, how do you deal with an unfunded tax increase if you're a government? What would that look like? :)

You mean when the wealthy get tax cuts so more of the debt burden is shifted to the middle class? It looks like what we have seen happening over the last 30 years since our progressive tax system was slashed.

Tax cuts, and tax increases effect whom, and why?

They affect us and the effective operation of our representative government.

The whom, is always at the center in economic discussions, the effects of tax increases, and tax cuts, also take center stage.

Exactly, the class war against the middle class was begun in 1981
 
What source is that?

j-mac

There was no other source, the trickle down never materialized to replace the tax cuts for the wealthy, that's was why trickle down economics failed.

Here is an illustration of how trickle down theory worked during our 30 year experiment:

jackson_trickle_down.jpg
 
There was no other source, the trickle down never materialized to replace the tax cuts for the wealthy, that's was why trickle down economics failed.

Here is an illustration of how trickle down theory worked during our 30 year experiment:

jackson_trickle_down.jpg

So from Reagan's era to just recently we didn't see a 20 year run of prosperity? What was that then?


j-mac
 
not according to the times

the lady laments that charlie changed his mind on the very day mr samuels took a knee

of course that was more than a year before over-his-head obama promoted the ceo to JOBS CZAR

which was only a few months after orzsag, summers and romer all QUIT

i wonder why practically his entire economic team QUIT

So what have you got to say about previous years, when GE wasn't paying much if it was paying at all, during the Bush years?

Going to ignore it like you have been? Not surprised!
 
So what have you got to say about previous years

they would be part of h-i-s-t-o-r-y

meanwhile, today:

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) launched a petition Wednesday calling on President Barack Obama to oust General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of the White House’s jobs panel, if the executive doesn’t step down voluntarily.

Feingold’s complaint stems from recent revelations that GE will pay no taxes this year, despite making more than $5 billion in the United States in 2010.

Feingold’s PAC, which sent the email, launched earlier this year and gained traction during the labor protests in Madison, has registered the web domain, ImmeltMustGo.com

“We cannot stand by and watch while we are led down this road. Mr. Immelt must step down from the president’s jobs panel — and if he won’t, President Obama needs to ask for his resignation,” Feingold wrote. “How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce? And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

Russ Feingold: GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt must go - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

senator russ feingold was probably the member of the caucus most famous for his INTEGRITY

he's also, by the way, according to insiders, the most credible of all potential primary challengers from obama's left

why would mr feingold's POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE circulate such a petition?
 
they would be part of h-i-s-t-o-r-y

meanwhile, today:
Oh sure, whatever Bush did was okay!



Russ Feingold: GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt must go - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

senator russ feingold was probably the member of the caucus most famous for his INTEGRITY

he's also, by the way, according to insiders, the most credible of all potential primary challengers from obama's left

why would mr feingold's POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE circulate such a petition?

You think I care? Like I mentioned before, which you seem to ignore, Immelt has contributed more to Republicans - I wonder if Congress Republicans want him gone?
 
That was the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, while the national debt grows. The trickle down went up and didn't create additional revenue to pay for themselves much less do anything to reduce our debt.

Really, because during that time we saw the greatest migration of middle class to wealthy in the history of this country. We saw as near full employment for the longest stretch of time ever in this country, and let me tell ya, if you couldn't improve your lot in life from the late 80s thru the 90s, and into the early 2000s you were either asleep, or barely above intellectually able to breathe. Thank Reagan for getting that started.


j-mac
 
Really, because during that time we saw the greatest migration of middle class to wealthy in the history of this country. We saw as near full employment for the longest stretch of time ever in this country, and let me tell ya, if you couldn't improve your lot in life from the late 80s thru the 90s, and into the early 2000s you were either asleep, or barely above intellectually able to breathe. Thank Reagan for getting that started.


j-mac

I am not sure I would necessarily attribute that to reagan, but all in all I agree. It is a ridiculious talking point to say "the poor have gotten poorer." Sure, no doubt the rich have gained more than others, this has contributed to a growing disparity between incomes, but the poor have not gotten poorer.
 
Really, because during that time we saw the greatest migration of middle class to wealthy in the history of this country.

Well I'll be. They had me thinking high income earners were hatched from demon-eggs.
 
Really, because during that time we saw the greatest migration of middle class to wealthy in the history of this country. We saw as near full employment for the longest stretch of time ever in this country, and let me tell ya, if you couldn't improve your lot in life from the late 80s thru the 90s, and into the early 2000s you were either asleep, or barely above intellectually able to breathe. Thank Reagan for getting that started.

Worked great personally for those at the top, but not so well for the the middle class or the National debt.

250px-Income_Shares_of_Households_graph.gif

Distribution of wealth

national_debt02.gif
 
Worked great personally for those at the top, but not so well for the the middle class or the National debt.

250px-Income_Shares_of_Households_graph.gif

Distribution of wealth

national_debt02.gif

The bottom twenty percent are not the middle class. That is the underclass. And once again your graphs do nothing to substantiate the opinion that the poor are gettting poorer. The graph shows that the distribution of income has scewed towards the top. You have failed to recognize that the size of the distribution has been growing. Also, what percentage of the national debt is composed of "implicit" debt held by the federal government? Who will eventually recieve the benefit of that?
 
SONGS don't have to make sense
 
The bottom twenty percent are not the middle class. That is the underclass. And once again your graphs do nothing to substantiate the opinion that the poor are gettting poorer. The graph shows that the distribution of income has scewed towards the top. You have failed to recognize that the size of the distribution has been growing. Also, what percentage of the national debt is composed of "implicit" debt held by the federal government? Who will eventually recieve the benefit of that?

As the debt increases through tax cuts to the top class, the lowere classes must shoulder more of that debt burden and enjoy none of the benefits of a higher standard of living.
 
As the debt increases through tax cuts to the top class, the lowere classes must shoulder more of that debt burden and enjoy none of the benefits of a higher standard of living.

The growth in debt is not soley attributable to lower tax rates on the top class. Lets look at the composition of the national debt. 32% of it is federal holdings, which is made up of pensions, social security funds, etc that will almost solely benefit the lower and middle class. Furthermore, look at the change in the distribution of the "top bracket" of income taxes. If you honestly think that making $250,000 annually makes you a part of the elite America, you are mistaken. These people are well off, but many of them are probably from "middle class" suburban neighborhoods. Also, you have yet to prove that the middle and lower classes have failed to achieve a higher standard of living over the previous decades.
 
The growth in debt is not soley attributable to lower tax rates on the top class. Lets look at the composition of the national debt. 32% of it is federal holdings, which is made up of pensions, social security funds, etc that will almost solely benefit the lower and middle class.


Cheaper than hiring cops and building prisons to keep hungry people from killing you for a loaf of bread. And we spend more on optional wars and military spending and the court systems to increase and protect the assets of the wealthy.

Furthermore, look at the change in the distribution of the "top bracket" of income taxes. If you honestly think that making $250,000 annually makes you a part of the elite America, you are mistaken. These people are well off, but many of them are probably from "middle class" suburban neighborhoods.

You want me to feel sorry for those making more than $250,000 when one in seven Americans are poor????

Also, you have yet to prove that the middle and lower classes have failed to achieve a higher standard of living over the previous decades.

I've provided two sources to your none
 

I have a good idea: how 'bout you point out the specific sections of your docs that tell about tax breaks for small businesses. Shouldn't be too hard, since you obviously already know where they are.





Oh you mean those that spend so much of their income on survival that to tax them more would put them on the welfare roles? What will that serve?

No, I mean people who make 30 or 40 grand a year that get 4 figure refunds every year. That way, everybody pays their fair share. Ain't that what it's all about?

If you want to tax the poor more, you are going to have to pay them more. Its not possible to get blood from a turnip.

Maybe they should get off their asses and go to work? A better idea would be for Obama to stop killing jobs with his hair brain policies.
 
Back
Top Bottom