Dubai is doing what is smart for them: Recognizing their income comes from a depleting natural resource and are leveraging money from that to kick start a financial, technical, and any other industry they can. Very smart long term investment for them.

If only there was another country that could make sound, long-term financial decisions..... (they just added another digit to the USA National Debt clock)

As you watch companies leave, remember they take *jobs* with them. Not just the jobs at the company, but the support companies, local resturants, and all the rest.

Let's take your argument for high corporate taxes and turn them around another way: Let's tax companies and people at 95% tax rate; a tax rate that did exist in the USA (1944-1945, for special reasons and with provisions).

Your job is to entice a company to come to the USA and open a business. You have to convince them that keeping only 5% of their profits is a good thing even though Europe will offer the same stability, roads, and the like, but let them keep 75% of their profits.

Or go back to that "two state" example I gave. Would you rather pay 25% tax or 95% tax while receiving the same government service?

If the companies leave America, people don't have a job. If you hate companies, unless you are a lone-craftsman working from a unibomber shack, brew your own biodiesel from plants, and never shop at anything but a mom-and-pop store, then it's tough to complain about them.

I'm not saying that companies should have 100% free reign, Ann Rand style. I'm just saying if you like working or buying things, you sort of need them. In a ugly system like we have now where companies bully and bribe towns and politicians to receive tax breaks, the average American is the loser.

Everybody loved how the government backed Fannie and Freddie, wiping out the competition for home mortgages. Until Fannie and Freddie became corrupt and those of us who bought homes responsibly have to pay to clean up the mess.

But that same average American keeps voting to keep that system around, so we only have ourselves to blame.

What I'm saying is that prior to the "free market" policies of the neo cons, America was a soverign nation that put its own interests first. Companies that were based here were American companies and they actually put their own country first. They were patriotic too. And why not? After all, they directly benefitted from America becoming a stronger nation and wars we fought.

That all changed after Communist Russia went away and the neo-con globalist policies began to really take hold. Soon, American companies began going abroad where labor was cheaper and then reselling those products back here. That alone was not the issue. That they did it in Communist countries that used slave labor to really take advantage of extremely low cost and an oppressed society is what is staggering. Any idiot could figure out the end result, although all those basturds told us for decades, that by going overseas, they'd create consumer markets in China and elsewhere that would eventually buy American made products. Total lies as we all know. The container ships that leave America contain nothing more than scrap metal, logs and oil. Almost no products at all.

You and others speak in terms free market, free competition and fairness. All talking points that were brainwashed into the heads of the conservative movement, including myself, but there is nothing fair about what happened to our country. And while I saw this coming years ago, many on our side of the isle are just now waking up. But as we see in thread, still many others haven't figured it out yet.

Every major corporation, every company that pulled roots and moved overseas, either entirely or just manufacturing, benefitted in some way by being an American company. They either grew and profitted from our wars, or they lived off of tax breaks, political influence that we gave them over the years, all over the world, and just by generally being supported by the American consumer and tax payer.

Had we as a nation not propped them up and helped them build up to be the companies they grew into, they would have never reached global international corporate status. They have us, and our tax paid dollars to thank.

They repaid Americans by first shipping jobs overseas and then shipping themselves and their entire tax base overseas. And then just to kick us while we are down, they are now taking with them, technology and resources that was developed in this country over the last many decades, often at tax payer expense, to sell to the highest overseas bidder.

It's not that it's un-America. Obviously indepedence and freedom of choice is what we are about. It's that they stabbed in the back and we actually helped them do it. America is about freedom, but we also have personal honor. A true American would not steal our neighbor's food and then sell out his house out from under him and careless about him and his family starving to death.

But consevatives and neo-cons have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into an ideology where it's OK to put one's self first and ahead of everyone else, thus justifying all of thier business decisions. Ironicly, many conservatives are Christain, yet the ideology of self first, is as entire anti-Christain as it gets.

We are responsible for allowing this to happen. We did it by electing and then supporting the neo-con economic philosophy that started with Reagan and continued with Bush sr. and Clinton and Bush W. This is definately not a republican issue, but rather a bi-partisen economy philosphy that got us here to where we are, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Everyone of us that voted these scum into office is to blame. But not only did we vote them into office, we shopped at Wal-Mart and we didn't care where our stuff was made, as long as it was cheap. We literally built from scratch, China, the newest superpower that will overtake our position in the world in the near future.

It is all of our fault and now we're reaping what we sowed. We, the current generation of Americans, from the baby boomers to the gen Xers and beyond, destroyed this country.

Let me re-clarify myself: The USA is not a free market. That's the problem.

We have a people-elected government that doles out favors based off votes (special interest groups) or money (big donors), instead of putting the needs of the country first.

When private insurers set a price for flood insurance that was too high, the taxpayer funded (and slightly assisted by premiums) National Flood Insurance was created. Companies made a fortune building millions of homes in flood plains and hurricane zones that people were happy to buy. As advertised on TV in VA, NFIP is only $150 per year. With NFIP crumbling, Florida stepped up and made themselves the "insurer of last resort"....and they now insure over 50% of Floridians and admit they can't pay. This is a government distortion of the free market.

When the Federal Gov selects two mortgage companies out of thousands and says we'll back you, but not the others, that causes most of the field to be cleared and puts all the power in the hands of two "private" companies. What could possibly go wrong? This is a government distortion of the free market.

These are but two of hundreds of millions of examples. By the way--root for Manchester United. As a taxypayer, you sponsor them now (Part of the AIG bailout).

When the government sets mandates, quotas, tax incentives, etc, it all serves as a distortion of a free market. Of course, it's always for a noble purpose. Just like everything that led to the market mess today was noble--put more people in homes. I'm not saying the government should never use incentives, but they are being used as money and vote getters now, not for any noble purpose. It has become death by increment.

Let's nail some other sacred cows to the wall:
- Why is there a mortgage deduction, aside from buying votes from people who already have enough money to afford a house? It distorts the value of a house. Condos/apartments are much more energy and space efficient. We should give *them* a tax break and encourage more dense living.

- Why do we keep subsidizing automobiles, automobile companies, and roads, and having to put special temporary tax breaks up for mass transit?

Imagine if we lived in high quality condos with park and community space (sort of like Florida), close to work and shopping with great public transportation. First, we'd have a huge drop in our energy dependence.

I don't understand how voting for one of the two powers that have ruled American politics for the the last 60 years or so involves "change." (With a few notable exceptions, such as Ron Paul, libertarian crossover). But the average voter keeps voting for the same thing over and over and then acting surprised when it doesn't lead to change.

Go Manchester United!

Your anger is blinding you. Horribly so. If your logic were at all sound, raising taxes would have a benefit to all organizations by providing them more of whatever it is you think their taxes are paying for. Guess what - that's not how things work! It's been proven over and over and over and over again that lower taxes breeds investment and economic growth. And that means increased gov't revenue. Not rocket science.

Our tax system and over-regulation are the two biggest problems facing this nation. Entitlements are amongst the top 3 as well.

AS it was stated, if you could move 10 miles away across state lines and save money on taxes, WHY WOULDN'T YOU? Same as moving from here to Dubai.

Don't let your anger blind you, Brian. We're all angry and frustrated, but you're starting to sound like a big-gov't liberal by demanding more regulation and taxes - the exact thing that got us into this place to begin with and the exact place people run when they feel uncomfortable. Government, no matter what Obama, Biden, Pelosi or the other freaks tell you, IS NOT THE ANSWER.

Can agree with much of the above.

Let's nail some other sacred cows to the wall:
- Why is there a mortgage deduction, aside from buying votes from people who already have enough money to afford a house? It distorts the value of a house. Condos/apartments are much more energy and space efficient. We should give *them* a tax break and encourage more dense living.

- Why do we keep subsidizing automobiles, automobile companies, and roads, and having to put special temporary tax breaks up for mass transit?

[/quote]

Holy contradiction, Batman!!!! We should not subsidize anything!!! Mortgage deductions are SMART. People renting get "credit for rent paid" deductions, which is based on income, which is foolish. I don't want to live downtown - tried it, hated it. I'll take my 5 acres, and hopefully another 100, thank you very much. Anyone trying to push me into another high rise will have another thing coming. BTW - do you really think that we need another NYC?



Go for it. Move to NYC. Show me how they are saving money on energy. But don't expect the rest of us to follow you.

Great point. It just drove me crazy when Obama kept hammering the idea of giving a tax break to the oil industry. ($4 billion) Where do these libs think that money is going to go? I'll tell you. Pensions, 401K's, employee raises, stock dividends (just ask Little Joe), reinvestment, bonuses (and not just for execs). Basically, right back into the economy. And rich people, where do you think their untaxed money goes? Cars (and therefore car salesman salary), restaurants (bus-boys, waiters, cooks), retail salespeople, etc. Again, back into the economy. It's not like those tax dollars are just going to up and disappear or get locked away in a vault forever.

Carlos

No contradiction at all--I repeatedly said the government shouldn't distort the free market with subsidies, with the exception of compelling FEDERAL level public interest. I then pointed out some examples. I don't, however, understand your two statements as they self-contradict
1. We should not subsidize anything!!!
2. Mortgage deductions are SMART.
Huh? Tax deductions that apply only to certain groups or actions *are* subsidies.
- No home = no deduction.
- Paid off home = no deduction
- Bigger loan at higher interest = bigger deduction.
That's dis-incentive to make a large down payment on a home you can easily afford, take a conservative loan, and pay it off early. And that's exactly how people reacted, and it played a part leading us into the mess we're in now. So the government incentive (distortion of the free market) worked! Perfect execution. As a bonus, we need to import more gas from countries that hate us since we live more spaced apart and have to drive more.

And along the way, we destroyed the global financial system in the process, set the stock market back 5 years (and counting), but *WE* did it. USA #1!

Ask the 50% of America (I'm having to guess at this as the number peaked at 60% home ownership a couple years ago, including people with paid off homes) who do not get deduct mortgage interest how they feel about subsidizing your home for you. (Full disclosure: I do own a home and claim the interest)

I googled your "credit for rent paid" deduction as I have never claimed it. Some caveats:
- It is not a FEDERAL law (which is what we were discussing), but a state rebate in Michigan, Maryland, and Missouri. Perhaps others, those were all I found.
- There is an income level associated with it. I am unaware of any income limit on the federal form for mortgage interest. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You seem to unaware there is a vast difference between a NYC (with tons of skyscrapers) and Dallas (with tons of 3 to 5 story apartment developments, including The Village). Bigger than 5 would be too congested for me. Please re-read, I never said we had to build 100+ story skyscrapers and force everyone to move in.

I also never said you can't move to your 5-acres. If Americans lived denser, on average, then you would actually have more land available to you. And I agree with your 2nd sentence--no subsidies. You should pay full market price, to include full taxes. (No federal deductions aka subsidies.) You should bear the true market value without government market distortion.
Note: I would argue different if it was a home business, aka a farm.


I would hope it's self-obvious that if you build two structures to an equal standard, then 12 houses each with four walls and a roof exposed to the elements would absorb/radiate more energy than a condo where each side only has one side exposed, and only the top units are exposed to the roof. It should be self obvious. If not:
- Freeze two blocks of ice with equal volume. Use tupperware.
- Take them outside at the same time
- Set one down gently
- Smash the other into small pieces
- See which lasts longer. Should answer your question.

Again, I'm not *forcing* you to do anything. I'm for removing federal distortion of the free market as a way to buy votes or curry favor, especially when it's counter-productive to things like our long-term security (energy independence). The federal government should only use subsidies to further long-term strategic goals for the security of the country.
- Mass transportation (reduce dependence on foreign oil)
- Education
- Basic science research (look up how the boost here after Sputnik drive American economy until the mid 80's, now look where the Nobel's are going)
- etc

Yes, but obviously can't have zero taxes as you would no longer have a nation. Companies would have to provide their own police and fire, including as a benefit to their employees, lowering their wages via a "protection" fee. Sort of like taxes.

You need some level of taxes; the point is to find the point of lowest taxes that will collect the most amount of money. Transparency helps--right now we have a corporate tax rate, but companies strong arm breaks to move in, to stay, to not move out, etc. All back-door deals, one-on-one. Not fair and uniform across the board--the opposite of transparency.

Good example:
The average European nation has tax rates on corporate income 10 percentage points lower than the U.S., but those countries on average raise 50% more as a share of GDP in corporate taxes than does the U.S., according to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department.
Ireland has a 12.5% corporate tax rate and captures 3.4% of it's GDP from it.
The USA has a 39.3% corporate tax rate and captures 2.5% of it's GDP from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve (note the plot on the bottom uses raw rates and doesn't take into effect the tax breaks corporations get to move in or not move out)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

We'll never know what lower taxes actually breeds in the economy. You know why? Because our economy is entirely fake. Based not on true growth and production, but on tens of trillions of dollars of debt. Trillions of dollars of public debt and trillions of dollars of personal and corporate debt. Just so happens, all that borrowing coincided with all those lowering of taxes. So what actually stimulated the economy? Lowering of taxes, or incredibly cheap and plentiful debt?

Well, you're about to find out. Because borrowing just ended. So, I guess we'll see how long the U.S. of A. can "grow" without any cheap credit, lowering of taxes or not.

Anger? Yes. Mixed in with a hellavua lot of common sense. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />



I would agree that entitlements are definately in the top 3 if not number 1 itself, but over regulation? Are you serious? We've deregulated almost every single industry and all are or have collasped. Just cooincidence or does it require even further deregulation? Maybe if the airline industry was deregulated even more? Maybe if the finance industry was deregulated more? After all, maybe 2 quadrillion in debt derivities would have stopped this problem instead of just a measely 1.5 quadrillion. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

And how is the U.S. suppose to compete in a global market if we have absolutely no regulation and every other country is the other extremity, almost full nationalization of all of their industries?



There's a huge difference between moving across a state line within our country and moving outside the country. So, no I would not move outside the country. I wouldn't even leave the state, if I felt morally obligated to stay, such as if the state provided me some tax breaks or funds or other help to build my business. In many cases, large corporations and manfacturing plants are provided exactly that, then stay for a years, before picking and moving elsewhere to get more breaks. To me that's immoral and completely unAmerican.



Not even close to true. I was, and still am, a huge Ron Paul libertarian supporter. There's a huge difference between libertarain free markets and neo-con "free trade" markets. If given a choice between a true free market and some form of market that we used to live under prior the 1980s, I'd revert back to the old system. The neo-con system has been shown to be a total shame and total failure. There's no question about that now.



Don't forget to add Bush, Cheney, Paulson and just about every other neo-con in there as well that now suddenly supports practically nationalizing our entire financial system. Because as we're seeing right now, the whole "private sector can do it better than government" ideology is being turned completely upsidedown on it's head. I mean seriously, how can you guys even say that with a straight face, when the fincial problems that are bringing the global economy to it's knees right now...right here, are largely attributed to a completely deregulated industry that grew totally out of control.

And don't even try to use any of those talking points from conservative talk radio about how Barney was forcing the poor banks to loan to black people in between his gay romps at home. I'm sick and tired of hearing of it. Especially since the mortgage problem is a tiny fraction of the problem. The vast majority of it is in the almost entirely unregulated derivities market, worth hundred of trillions to honest to God quadrillions.

Dont' get me wrong, I don't agree with the government sitution that they are using to try to fix the problem. Because in the end, we will likely end up with one giant centralized global fincial system with a single currency and control out of the hands of even the U.S. government and into the hands of, most likely, a single all powerful, central global banking system.

In the end, some of you guys are going to be forced to rethink your entire ideologies about government, taxes, deregulation. Because even your heros are showing their real colors right now, and while you voted in men who you thought actually believed in free markets and free trade, they're planning and enacted the largest centralized global finance system the world has ever seen. And you won't be able to take a pyss without their permission when their done.

My heroes are still just rocking it, thank you very much.

Jesus Christ, my Parents, and Grandparents. BOOYAAAH. My oldest daught will be another hero for me, if she continues with life as she has the first 19 years. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I like to blame atheists and democrats and liberals and anti-gun people...it just makes my life soooo much simpler. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/notooth.gif" alt="" />