Why can't we just have it simple. You get taxed where you make the money... period. This includes intellectual property. Time to set right the tax laws and base everything on the location of the consumer.
Every country can decide what their tax rules will be. For instance I am partial to one tax rate for income and another for taking money out of a country.
That is exactly what 99% of all countries do. Even down to the personal level. You pay taxes where you earn your income, end of story. The US, however, wants a share of ALL your worldwide income, regardless of where you made it - or even if you are in the US at all. So you get the proliferation of overseas subsidiaries as legally separate entities as a maneuver to avoid double-taxation (yes, the US gives you credit for overseas taxes paid, but only up to a point - and then you get to pay overseas AND US income taxes on everything above, and the limits are pretty low...)
>We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.
So what you would do to encourage companies to do business here? Assume you left the corporate tax rate at 35% - what else would you do to encourage businesses to come back to the US?
The only time anyone pays Federal taxes on the declared value of an asset is when they die - the estate tax. You don't pay a Federal taxes on any asset value, you only pay on any income realized from the sale or use of that asset. You have a $10 million patent, or a $40 million building? No Federal taxes unless you sell them (capital gains) or realize income from renting/using them (license fees of rental/leasing).
LOL. Is that why everyone is using it and competitors (like copycat google) are cloning it.
I wouldn't call 12% of the market and falling as "everyone is using it". Perhaps in the tiny bubble of the Bay area you see more than typical, but when you're the choice of less than one in eight, that's hardly "everyone".
Is there an actual contract somewhere that says "we will pay you $OBSCENEAMOUNT if you do not use chips from vendor N", or was that inferred because there was a contract that said something like "we will give you $OBSCENEAMOUNT to use our chips exclusively"? Functionally, I admit - same result. However, the former I would agree would be illegal, the latter would be quite typical in just about every industry since Thag started making pointy sticks for Ug.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Now, go and look at the record of annual debt and tell me when it went down. Oops! You can't - at least after 1957. Even FactCheck fell for the lie, as you did. They define a deficit correctly - it causes the debt to go up. But then they hand-wave and say "well it still went down because we shifted some debt from one account to another". Doesn't work.
Face it - you're wrong. You are trying to find sources to support you - and they even contradict you (and themselves, interestingly enough). I know you WANT to believe that Clinton had a surplus, but the fact is - he didn't. Never happened. Read that quote again, especially the money quote: "the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit". Now check the years for Clinton. Debt went UP every year!
The fact is - if the debt goes up, there was a deficit. Plain and simple. The ONLY way to claim otherwise is to not count some spending, ignoring the debt incurred from that spending. But that's not really honest, is it? That's lying - and it's why you are so upset. You've been caught believing a lie - and now, rather than admit your error, you choose to defend the lie.
Tell me please - why is FactCheck wrong about the definition of a deficit?
Hey - you've confirmed it's NOT possible, unless you redefine a surplus as something other than having too much. You want to play along with the liars in Congress and DC and claim it's all OK. Well then, if you choose to do so, and claim that losing money is actually making money, and that spending more than you have is actually spending less than you make, then be my guest! But if I were you, I'd reflect on the fact you're essentially supporting double-speak and lying. Enjoy!
Unpossible! Why they are a Red State, and we all KNOW that Red States are all about corporate overlords and screwing the little guy! This is clearly a lie, someone must have meant California, or New York, or Washington, or some other deep-blue State!
If FB were in China, they definitely would not allow the US to write obviously fake news articles.
If they were in China, the Chinese Government would not allow ANYONE to write articles critical of the Government - fake OR true. If your article is pro-Government - fake or true - it would be published. Being fake or true would have nothing to do with it, it would come down to "is it critical of the Government".
Ahh, so the concern isn't that the Russians are influencing the elections, it's that they are influencing the wrong person. Just like the fact that Pew Research shows the media heavily tilted against Trump. It's the person, not the action. That is quite typical of lovely little leftists like you, though...
And now we know you're an idiot and ceding your point. Insults and strawmen! No, if we are attacked by all means spend to defend! However, don't go and claim it was "off budget" and thus you still had a surplus. The fact is that lazy people like you are fine ignoring the real facts - that we are in deficit spending mode and have been since 1957.
So - a SINO? Surplus In Name Only? We ended up spending more than we took in, but because we didn't count ALL our spending in the official total, we had a surplus?
Ahh, so basically because the budget doesn't cover all spending, we can have a budget surplus whilst increasing out national debt. Exactly as I stated. And showing it to be a true "smoke and mirrors" thing. Sure - you had a surplus on SOME of your spending, but all your spending? No surplus at all, you still added to your debt. Is that really a surplus, or just a political game you can play to claim a fake victory?
I'll tell you what - you give away ALL your money save $10, but since none of your expenses will be counted towards your normal "budget", that means you will have a surplus of $10 - even if you had to borrow to cover all your expenses. Right? You're $10 up - you have a surplus!
Sorry that most of us see right through the lying shit your type peddles. We're a lot smarter than you think, and understand that planning to spend $20, only spending $19, but only having $15 income is still a loss of $4, not a surplus of $1. But hey - you love those games! Same kind of thinking that applies values of billions to companies that have no profit, nor any plan/way to gain profit...
Sorry, it's true. The US Census Bureau's own data says so - and Politifact (hardly a right-wing site) confirms it is, indeed, a valid claim. California has the highest poverty rate when you factor in the cost of living.
Then it doesn't exist. Not a single municipality near the ocean in that area has a cost of living lower or comparable to Houston, TX. Flat out. Simply a lie.
So tell us where this mythical, cheaper-than-Houston place is. It's not in the 5 cities, Avila, Morro Bay, or other places on the central coast. You made the claim - where is it? Or were you just talking out your ass?
Well, when one side demands you simply shut up and you cannot have your opinion without being a mysogynist, racist, homophobic Nazi who deserves to die - it makes it hard to even begin to talk together.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't we try that for the last 8 years, and we ended up with 3% growth (well below historic averages) as a result?
Why can't we just have it simple. You get taxed where you make the money... period. This includes intellectual property. Time to set right the tax laws and base everything on the location of the consumer.
Every country can decide what their tax rules will be. For instance I am partial to one tax rate for income and another for taking money out of a country.
That is exactly what 99% of all countries do. Even down to the personal level. You pay taxes where you earn your income, end of story. The US, however, wants a share of ALL your worldwide income, regardless of where you made it - or even if you are in the US at all. So you get the proliferation of overseas subsidiaries as legally separate entities as a maneuver to avoid double-taxation (yes, the US gives you credit for overseas taxes paid, but only up to a point - and then you get to pay overseas AND US income taxes on everything above, and the limits are pretty low...)
>We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.
So what you would do to encourage companies to do business here? Assume you left the corporate tax rate at 35% - what else would you do to encourage businesses to come back to the US?
The only time anyone pays Federal taxes on the declared value of an asset is when they die - the estate tax. You don't pay a Federal taxes on any asset value, you only pay on any income realized from the sale or use of that asset. You have a $10 million patent, or a $40 million building? No Federal taxes unless you sell them (capital gains) or realize income from renting/using them (license fees of rental/leasing).
LOL. Is that why everyone is using it and competitors (like copycat google) are cloning it.
I wouldn't call 12% of the market and falling as "everyone is using it". Perhaps in the tiny bubble of the Bay area you see more than typical, but when you're the choice of less than one in eight, that's hardly "everyone".
Is there an actual contract somewhere that says "we will pay you $OBSCENEAMOUNT if you do not use chips from vendor N", or was that inferred because there was a contract that said something like "we will give you $OBSCENEAMOUNT to use our chips exclusively"? Functionally, I admit - same result. However, the former I would agree would be illegal, the latter would be quite typical in just about every industry since Thag started making pointy sticks for Ug.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Now, go and look at the record of annual debt and tell me when it went down. Oops! You can't - at least after 1957. Even FactCheck fell for the lie, as you did. They define a deficit correctly - it causes the debt to go up. But then they hand-wave and say "well it still went down because we shifted some debt from one account to another". Doesn't work.
Face it - you're wrong. You are trying to find sources to support you - and they even contradict you (and themselves, interestingly enough). I know you WANT to believe that Clinton had a surplus, but the fact is - he didn't. Never happened. Read that quote again, especially the money quote: "the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit". Now check the years for Clinton. Debt went UP every year!
The fact is - if the debt goes up, there was a deficit. Plain and simple. The ONLY way to claim otherwise is to not count some spending, ignoring the debt incurred from that spending. But that's not really honest, is it? That's lying - and it's why you are so upset. You've been caught believing a lie - and now, rather than admit your error, you choose to defend the lie.
Tell me please - why is FactCheck wrong about the definition of a deficit?
It is close to the 35% the USITC recommended (in TFS).
Hey - you've confirmed it's NOT possible, unless you redefine a surplus as something other than having too much. You want to play along with the liars in Congress and DC and claim it's all OK. Well then, if you choose to do so, and claim that losing money is actually making money, and that spending more than you have is actually spending less than you make, then be my guest! But if I were you, I'd reflect on the fact you're essentially supporting double-speak and lying. Enjoy!
Unpossible! Why they are a Red State, and we all KNOW that Red States are all about corporate overlords and screwing the little guy! This is clearly a lie, someone must have meant California, or New York, or Washington, or some other deep-blue State!
If FB were in China, they definitely would not allow the US to write obviously fake news articles.
If they were in China, the Chinese Government would not allow ANYONE to write articles critical of the Government - fake OR true. If your article is pro-Government - fake or true - it would be published. Being fake or true would have nothing to do with it, it would come down to "is it critical of the Government".
Ahh, so the concern isn't that the Russians are influencing the elections, it's that they are influencing the wrong person. Just like the fact that Pew Research shows the media heavily tilted against Trump. It's the person, not the action. That is quite typical of lovely little leftists like you, though...
And now we know you're an idiot and ceding your point. Insults and strawmen! No, if we are attacked by all means spend to defend! However, don't go and claim it was "off budget" and thus you still had a surplus. The fact is that lazy people like you are fine ignoring the real facts - that we are in deficit spending mode and have been since 1957.
And how much time was spent by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC on this revelation compared to the supposed Russian influence for Trump?
I'm just waiting for Facebook to investigate if Russians made Han Solo shoot first...
42
Those are not States. Of the States (not territories), California tops the list. Sorry if that offends you.
So - a SINO? Surplus In Name Only? We ended up spending more than we took in, but because we didn't count ALL our spending in the official total, we had a surplus?
And you call me stupid?
Ahh, so basically because the budget doesn't cover all spending, we can have a budget surplus whilst increasing out national debt. Exactly as I stated. And showing it to be a true "smoke and mirrors" thing. Sure - you had a surplus on SOME of your spending, but all your spending? No surplus at all, you still added to your debt. Is that really a surplus, or just a political game you can play to claim a fake victory?
I'll tell you what - you give away ALL your money save $10, but since none of your expenses will be counted towards your normal "budget", that means you will have a surplus of $10 - even if you had to borrow to cover all your expenses. Right? You're $10 up - you have a surplus!
Sorry that most of us see right through the lying shit your type peddles. We're a lot smarter than you think, and understand that planning to spend $20, only spending $19, but only having $15 income is still a loss of $4, not a surplus of $1. But hey - you love those games! Same kind of thinking that applies values of billions to companies that have no profit, nor any plan/way to gain profit...
Sorry, it's true. The US Census Bureau's own data says so - and Politifact (hardly a right-wing site) confirms it is, indeed, a valid claim. California has the highest poverty rate when you factor in the cost of living.
Then it doesn't exist. Not a single municipality near the ocean in that area has a cost of living lower or comparable to Houston, TX. Flat out. Simply a lie.
No.
So tell us where this mythical, cheaper-than-Houston place is. It's not in the 5 cities, Avila, Morro Bay, or other places on the central coast. You made the claim - where is it? Or were you just talking out your ass?
Take a look - Moonbeam has increased the State debt, we're back facing deficits - and we have the highest poverty in the nation.
Well, when one side demands you simply shut up and you cannot have your opinion without being a mysogynist, racist, homophobic Nazi who deserves to die - it makes it hard to even begin to talk together.