If you look back thru the history of this country, that is what has always been done in dire straits. Those that can afford it flee and leave the rest of us here to burn
On the Impeachment Front ... Help Needed
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Investors want more than deserved on investments.
Use to be that when you invested you got a small return on the money you invested.
Say about 15% - 25% now days the investors want a 80% - 95% return in profits.
Greed is not a virtue.
Since these investors want so much profit on their money they make the corporations go overseas to slave labor markets to increase their investment returns....
Like I said, free trade is not free, free trade is a myth.
Use to be that when you invested you got a small return on the money you invested.
Say about 15% - 25% now days the investors want a 80% - 95% return in profits.
Greed is not a virtue.
Since these investors want so much profit on their money they make the corporations go overseas to slave labor markets to increase their investment returns....
Like I said, free trade is not free, free trade is a myth.
ViRedd
New Member
Dank ...
Here's an interesting article from a magazine (Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture) I've subscribed to for the past 15 years. Hope you and others will gain some insight from it:
Taxation for Economic Survival: The Business Transfer Tax
by David A. Hartman
The severity of the ongoing decline of U.S. manufacturing has placed our prosperity and national security in jeopardy. A principal cause of this crisis is the federal tax code, which currently imposes multiple layers of progressive taxation on U.S. goods.
The result, as many economists acknowledge, is crippling: a double taxation of savings for investment and excessive marginal rates. But there is an even greater disadvantage to U.S. manufacturing: a one-sided application of free-trade policies. The object of the various free-trade agreements crafted by our government was supposedly the mutual elimination of tariffs. Tariffs were, in fact, eliminated, but all of Americas trading partners replaced them with comparably high border-adjusted value-added taxes (VAT), which give selective advantage to their industries. The result is crippling: a double taxation of savings for investment and excessive marginal rates, redoubled by the additional burden of foreign value-added taxes.
America is virtually alone in the developed world in not providing the advantage of such border-adjusted taxation to her manufacturers. At an average level of 17.7 percent for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these taxes are not only levied on goods imported from the United States but abated on goods exported to the United States, constructing barriers to U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing that are insurmountable, especially since, in todays open world economy, capital, technology and management are free to move anywhere that offers the best opportunities.
The United States has adopted a self-destructive trade policy, in part, because of our entirely laudable commitment to free enterprise and our rejection of mercantilism and colonialism. At least since World War II, American business and political leaders have viewed free trade as the basis for international peace and prosperity. In theory, the invisible hand of free marketsif capital, technology, and labor were free to seek their own competitive advantagewould disperse the means and fruits of free enterprise worldwide. To accomplish this economic miracle, protectionism in the form of quotas, red tape, and, most particularly, high tariffs would be progressively reduced and ultimately abandoned.
As the dominant economic and military power, the United States led the movement to dismantle trade barriers, both by setting the example and by supporting a New World Order of international trade regulation (GATT and WTO), economic cooperation (OECD), and customs unions (such as the European Union and NAFTA). According to the OECD, its members have reduced their average tariff rates from 40 percent at the end of World War II to 4 percent today. The United States average import duty on goods is currently 1.7 percent.
The decline of tariffs masked a trend, which started in Europe, toward border-adjusted taxation in the form of value-added taxes. These taxes were levied principally on manufactured goods. The alleged purpose was to level the playing field by offsetting the expense of government welfare through taxation of spending on consumption. The VATs were determined to be indirect taxation, which the WTO permits to be rebated on exports and levied on imports. Led by France, who first adopted the VAT in 1968, European Common Market countries added the VAT over the next five years, although Germany and Italy were slower to reach the current VAT rates than were France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The Asian countries have since joined the VAT parade. Today, the European Union 15 has an average standard VAT of 19 percent, and the average OECD standard VAT is 17.7 percent. During the 1990s, Mexico and Canada increased composite rates to 15 percent from 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, and China adopted a 17 percent VAT in 1994.
The OECDs summary of its members tax trends (Revenue Statistics 1965-2002) reveals the truth:
As foreign governments have increased the VAT, they have also reduced effective corporate income taxes. In the United States, by contrast, the taxation of resident corporations foreign income is causing the flight of corporations headquarters to countries that exempt taxation of overseas income.
The time has come to replace the current corporate income tax with a border-adjusted and territorial tax code that really does level the economic playing field. Any effective alternative should also meet the requirements of supply-side tax reform. In other words, such a tax code should be neutral in taxing savings versus taxing consumption; it should reduce marginal rates and assess the tax burden equitably.
There are four principal candidates for supply-side tax reform. Only two of them, unfortunately, meet the criteria of consumption taxation and border adjustability. The most popular plan with conservatives is probably the Hall-Rabuska flat tax, which is a single-rate tax on wages and an equal-rate tax on origin-based corporate cash flow that exempts returns to capital at the personal level. As a direct tax, however, the flat tax could not be made border-adjusted according to WTO standards and, therefore, could offer no comparable border-adjusted tax relief for U.S. manufacturers. Although it is promoted as a simple tax, political reality would subject the flat tax to a continuing redefinition of incomeand, potentially, to a progressive rate schedule. Since such a plan would inevitably be stigmatized as tax relief for the rich at the expense of the majority of wage-earning taxpayers, its prospects are very dim.
Another less popular plan is the Consumed Income Tax (CIT), which taxes all income once and only at the personal level, after investment savings have been exempted. This, too, qualifies as a direct tax, making it ineligible for border adjustment. Although the CIT has the advantage of taxing all income the same and of encouraging investment, it is also susceptible to political tinkering that could reintroduce progressive taxation and higher marginal rates.
Closer to the mark is the Fair Tax, which is a flat-rate retail-sales tax (RST) that replaces all federal taxation, including social-insurance taxes, and gives rebates on the tax on the equivalent of poverty-level income. It is an indirect consumption tax, and, as such, qualifies by WTO standards for border adjustment.
The preferable alternative is the Business Transfer Tax (BTT), a subtraction method value-added tax based on the difference between revenues and purchased goods and services for all enterprises and employers. The BTT would exempt fixed investment and exports, but it would apply to imports, and it would credit an employer for social-insurance taxes paid. Both the RST and the BTT would offer rebates that could be used to remit taxes on necessities.
The RST and the BTT are both consumption taxes, but there are significant differences because of the different tax bases that underlie the plans. Theoretically, the RST has as its base all personal consumption expenditures; experience with state retail sales taxes, however, shows that it is very difficult politically to impose taxes directly on necessities. A large portion of consumptionhousing, healthcare, food, legal fees, and even hair careare exempt from state retail taxes, and the same humanitarian zeal might afflict the RST. Even without exempting necessities, the RST would have a smaller potential base. It would require a higher rate than the BTT, which would provide an incentive for tax evasion. Were an RST to replace all federal taxation (as the Fair Tax proposes), then it would either have a smaller base than the proposed BTT, or it would have to introduce a companion measure that would tax payroll and the consumption expenditures of government and not-for-profits.
This leaves the Business Transfer Tax as the most viable proposal on the table. What are its advantages? Apart from the fact that it can be made border adjustable, the BTT would establish a tax base that includes all commerce and employers, eventually reaching even employment and purchases in the government sector and employment in the ballooning not-for-profit sector. Although aimed at consumption, the BTT, by collecting from employers rather than from consumers, would offer little justification for allowing exemption, but it would also provide equitable rebates to offset spending on necessities. Such rebates would serve as replacement for exemptions, deductions, and credits, and, if the BTT were adopted as a single flat tax, all taxation of income could be eliminated.
How should a Business Transfer Tax be implemented on a revenue-neutral basis, replacing current taxation in order of priority? First, the corporate income tax would be replaced by a 5.5-percent BTT. Next, the BTT would be raised to 10 percent, enabling the personal income tax to be flattened to a 14-percent single rate. Finally, the entire tax code (apart from personal FICA taxes) would be replaced by a 20-percent BTT. If the socialists insisted on maintaining a progressive code, a somewhat lower BTT rate could be adopted, supplemented by a modest upper-income tax. This is not recommended, but this is not a perfect world.
Following this plan would mean an equitable, neutral, transparent, and politically feasible supply-side and border-adjusted reform of the federal tax code. It would dramatically reduce our perennial trade deficits on manufactured goods and provide optimal growth for all sectors of the U.S. economy. It would level the playing field for U.S. corporations in general, and manufacturing in particular, and for U.S. blue-collar workers, whose earnings have been increasingly depressed over the past three decades. It would mean a return to a more equitable sharing in the growth and prosperity of the U.S. economynot only for those in manufacturing but for all sectors of the U.S. economy.
Our representatives in Congress should consider the U.S. taxpayers definition of fair taxation. A Readers Digest poll addressed the question What is the highest rate of taxes Americans should pay regardless of income level? A statistically sound sample of Americans answered: 25 percent. The BTT meets this criterion.
Some politicians and experts continue to deny that there is a manufacturing crisis and to oppose a U.S. value-added based tax. This obfuscation of the real reasons for declining blue-collar incomes serves the interests only of the few who currently profit abroad at the expense of all other Americans prospects for the future.
David A. Hartman, a retired banker, is chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute.
This article first appeared in the December 2004 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Here's an interesting article from a magazine (Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture) I've subscribed to for the past 15 years. Hope you and others will gain some insight from it:
Taxation for Economic Survival: The Business Transfer Tax
by David A. Hartman
The result, as many economists acknowledge, is crippling: a double taxation of savings for investment and excessive marginal rates. But there is an even greater disadvantage to U.S. manufacturing: a one-sided application of free-trade policies. The object of the various free-trade agreements crafted by our government was supposedly the mutual elimination of tariffs. Tariffs were, in fact, eliminated, but all of Americas trading partners replaced them with comparably high border-adjusted value-added taxes (VAT), which give selective advantage to their industries. The result is crippling: a double taxation of savings for investment and excessive marginal rates, redoubled by the additional burden of foreign value-added taxes.
America is virtually alone in the developed world in not providing the advantage of such border-adjusted taxation to her manufacturers. At an average level of 17.7 percent for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these taxes are not only levied on goods imported from the United States but abated on goods exported to the United States, constructing barriers to U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing that are insurmountable, especially since, in todays open world economy, capital, technology and management are free to move anywhere that offers the best opportunities.
The United States has adopted a self-destructive trade policy, in part, because of our entirely laudable commitment to free enterprise and our rejection of mercantilism and colonialism. At least since World War II, American business and political leaders have viewed free trade as the basis for international peace and prosperity. In theory, the invisible hand of free marketsif capital, technology, and labor were free to seek their own competitive advantagewould disperse the means and fruits of free enterprise worldwide. To accomplish this economic miracle, protectionism in the form of quotas, red tape, and, most particularly, high tariffs would be progressively reduced and ultimately abandoned.
As the dominant economic and military power, the United States led the movement to dismantle trade barriers, both by setting the example and by supporting a New World Order of international trade regulation (GATT and WTO), economic cooperation (OECD), and customs unions (such as the European Union and NAFTA). According to the OECD, its members have reduced their average tariff rates from 40 percent at the end of World War II to 4 percent today. The United States average import duty on goods is currently 1.7 percent.
The decline of tariffs masked a trend, which started in Europe, toward border-adjusted taxation in the form of value-added taxes. These taxes were levied principally on manufactured goods. The alleged purpose was to level the playing field by offsetting the expense of government welfare through taxation of spending on consumption. The VATs were determined to be indirect taxation, which the WTO permits to be rebated on exports and levied on imports. Led by France, who first adopted the VAT in 1968, European Common Market countries added the VAT over the next five years, although Germany and Italy were slower to reach the current VAT rates than were France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The Asian countries have since joined the VAT parade. Today, the European Union 15 has an average standard VAT of 19 percent, and the average OECD standard VAT is 17.7 percent. During the 1990s, Mexico and Canada increased composite rates to 15 percent from 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, and China adopted a 17 percent VAT in 1994.
The OECDs summary of its members tax trends (Revenue Statistics 1965-2002) reveals the truth:
A fast growing revenue source has been general consumption taxes, especially the value added tax (VAT) which is now found in twenty-nine of the thirty OECD countries. In fact, the substantially increased importance of the value added tax has everywhere served to counteract the diminishing share of specific consumption taxes such as excises and custom duties.
The only one of the 30 OECD countries without border adjustments in her federal tax code is, of course, the United States.
As foreign governments have increased the VAT, they have also reduced effective corporate income taxes. In the United States, by contrast, the taxation of resident corporations foreign income is causing the flight of corporations headquarters to countries that exempt taxation of overseas income.
The time has come to replace the current corporate income tax with a border-adjusted and territorial tax code that really does level the economic playing field. Any effective alternative should also meet the requirements of supply-side tax reform. In other words, such a tax code should be neutral in taxing savings versus taxing consumption; it should reduce marginal rates and assess the tax burden equitably.
There are four principal candidates for supply-side tax reform. Only two of them, unfortunately, meet the criteria of consumption taxation and border adjustability. The most popular plan with conservatives is probably the Hall-Rabuska flat tax, which is a single-rate tax on wages and an equal-rate tax on origin-based corporate cash flow that exempts returns to capital at the personal level. As a direct tax, however, the flat tax could not be made border-adjusted according to WTO standards and, therefore, could offer no comparable border-adjusted tax relief for U.S. manufacturers. Although it is promoted as a simple tax, political reality would subject the flat tax to a continuing redefinition of incomeand, potentially, to a progressive rate schedule. Since such a plan would inevitably be stigmatized as tax relief for the rich at the expense of the majority of wage-earning taxpayers, its prospects are very dim.
Another less popular plan is the Consumed Income Tax (CIT), which taxes all income once and only at the personal level, after investment savings have been exempted. This, too, qualifies as a direct tax, making it ineligible for border adjustment. Although the CIT has the advantage of taxing all income the same and of encouraging investment, it is also susceptible to political tinkering that could reintroduce progressive taxation and higher marginal rates.
Closer to the mark is the Fair Tax, which is a flat-rate retail-sales tax (RST) that replaces all federal taxation, including social-insurance taxes, and gives rebates on the tax on the equivalent of poverty-level income. It is an indirect consumption tax, and, as such, qualifies by WTO standards for border adjustment.
The preferable alternative is the Business Transfer Tax (BTT), a subtraction method value-added tax based on the difference between revenues and purchased goods and services for all enterprises and employers. The BTT would exempt fixed investment and exports, but it would apply to imports, and it would credit an employer for social-insurance taxes paid. Both the RST and the BTT would offer rebates that could be used to remit taxes on necessities.
The RST and the BTT are both consumption taxes, but there are significant differences because of the different tax bases that underlie the plans. Theoretically, the RST has as its base all personal consumption expenditures; experience with state retail sales taxes, however, shows that it is very difficult politically to impose taxes directly on necessities. A large portion of consumptionhousing, healthcare, food, legal fees, and even hair careare exempt from state retail taxes, and the same humanitarian zeal might afflict the RST. Even without exempting necessities, the RST would have a smaller potential base. It would require a higher rate than the BTT, which would provide an incentive for tax evasion. Were an RST to replace all federal taxation (as the Fair Tax proposes), then it would either have a smaller base than the proposed BTT, or it would have to introduce a companion measure that would tax payroll and the consumption expenditures of government and not-for-profits.
This leaves the Business Transfer Tax as the most viable proposal on the table. What are its advantages? Apart from the fact that it can be made border adjustable, the BTT would establish a tax base that includes all commerce and employers, eventually reaching even employment and purchases in the government sector and employment in the ballooning not-for-profit sector. Although aimed at consumption, the BTT, by collecting from employers rather than from consumers, would offer little justification for allowing exemption, but it would also provide equitable rebates to offset spending on necessities. Such rebates would serve as replacement for exemptions, deductions, and credits, and, if the BTT were adopted as a single flat tax, all taxation of income could be eliminated.
How should a Business Transfer Tax be implemented on a revenue-neutral basis, replacing current taxation in order of priority? First, the corporate income tax would be replaced by a 5.5-percent BTT. Next, the BTT would be raised to 10 percent, enabling the personal income tax to be flattened to a 14-percent single rate. Finally, the entire tax code (apart from personal FICA taxes) would be replaced by a 20-percent BTT. If the socialists insisted on maintaining a progressive code, a somewhat lower BTT rate could be adopted, supplemented by a modest upper-income tax. This is not recommended, but this is not a perfect world.
Following this plan would mean an equitable, neutral, transparent, and politically feasible supply-side and border-adjusted reform of the federal tax code. It would dramatically reduce our perennial trade deficits on manufactured goods and provide optimal growth for all sectors of the U.S. economy. It would level the playing field for U.S. corporations in general, and manufacturing in particular, and for U.S. blue-collar workers, whose earnings have been increasingly depressed over the past three decades. It would mean a return to a more equitable sharing in the growth and prosperity of the U.S. economynot only for those in manufacturing but for all sectors of the U.S. economy.
Our representatives in Congress should consider the U.S. taxpayers definition of fair taxation. A Readers Digest poll addressed the question What is the highest rate of taxes Americans should pay regardless of income level? A statistically sound sample of Americans answered: 25 percent. The BTT meets this criterion.
Some politicians and experts continue to deny that there is a manufacturing crisis and to oppose a U.S. value-added based tax. This obfuscation of the real reasons for declining blue-collar incomes serves the interests only of the few who currently profit abroad at the expense of all other Americans prospects for the future.
David A. Hartman, a retired banker, is chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute.
This article first appeared in the December 2004 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
medicineman
New Member
NWO=72cents an hour wages world wide. Try fueling your caddie STX on that.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with impeaching the illegitimate bush for war crimes! Not one damn thing ... you only bring it up to distract from the issue ... that all you bushies can do ... you CAN'T dispute the facts he and his regime have committed WAR CRIMES so you bring up this bullshit ... well it won't work!
Try disputing the reports I post instead of sidestepping the issues like you and your ilk love to do ...
... ooooh ... I like this one ... kiss-ass
Now for our viewers at home ... back to the subject of this thread ... and for the record ...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/16/countdown-impeachment-subpoenas-bush-continues-to-evade-justice/Countdown: Impeachment & Subpoenas, Bush Continues To Evade Justice
WMP
The House has sent articles of impeachment against George Bush to the House Judiciary Committee, however Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says that an actual impeachment VOTE isnt on the table. On Wednesdays Countdown, Jonathan Turley gives his expert analysis on this epic fail as well as the latest attempt by the president to obstruct Congressional oversight by claiming executive privilege in the CIA/Plame leak investigation.
As for Bushs executive privilege claims, Turley goes right for the jugular. Attorney General Michael Mukasey all but begged the president not to make him testify about Dick Cheneys role in the Plame case and has ignored a subpoena to appear to testify about the matter before Congress which Turley says should prompt Congress to charge him with Inherent Contempt. Thats not likely to happen, and as Jonathan points out, Democrats who voted for Mukasey are now getting what they paid for:
This is why, when Senators Shumer and Feinstein saved Mukaseys confirmation, this is what they purchased. And, what Congress needs to do, the only thing they can do, is bring back Inherent Contempt and to say theyre going to start to exercise contempt on their own, that the deal is off. Attorney General Mukasey has broken a very long standing promise to be a faithful broker, to bring these cases to the grand jury - he wont. And Congress has a right to now say were going back to doing this stuff ourselves.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
As I stated in my thread about the crimes of the illegitimate bush regime .... Pelosi is part of that regime as well as the rest of the dim leadership ... so I will be posting her complicity to the crimes committed ... some very brave and patriotic Souls have been following that treasonous bitch Pelosi around the country on her bookstore tour putting the pressure on ...
... the fact that people are actually buying her piece of shit book show you who's asleep at the wheel ... kiss-ass
You will have to click on the Youtube link at the site ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUlhmOQEI_MPelosi Admits She Has NOT Read Articles of Impeachment!?!
Here is a great video by Anthony of We Are Change in which Nancy Pelosi admits that she has NOT read the Articles of Impeachment even after being asked about impeachment on The View!?! Apparently, Pelosi outrageously believes that Congress should no longer hold the Executive branch accountable.
Hopefully Pelosi will be defeated this Nov. by Cindy Sheehan ... that would be great ...
... the fact that people are actually buying her piece of shit book show you who's asleep at the wheel ... kiss-ass
You will have to click on the Youtube link at the site ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUlhmOQEI_MPelosi Admits She Has NOT Read Articles of Impeachment!?!
Here is a great video by Anthony of We Are Change in which Nancy Pelosi admits that she has NOT read the Articles of Impeachment even after being asked about impeachment on The View!?! Apparently, Pelosi outrageously believes that Congress should no longer hold the Executive branch accountable.
Hopefully Pelosi will be defeated this Nov. by Cindy Sheehan ... that would be great ...
medicineman
New Member
The lack of action by the House is in itself a crime. Not pursuing impeachable offences, almost assuredly insures the fact that the next POTUS will not fear similar action. The reason for Impeachment is not so much punishment for the POTUS, but the clarification of constitutional rules that must not be broken by misuse of power, and the consequences for that action. To actually say that even though a POTUS has violated the constitution he will not be prosecuted is a breach in our trust of our leaders to the highest degree, as in treason.
ViRedd
New Member
They are not pursuing it BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CASE.
Do you honestly believe if the Democrats really had a case for impeachment that they wouldn't take action? Man, after Clinton's impeachment, the Demobats are chomping at the bit to get at Bush ... but, dare I say it ... Bush outsmarts the Dimbats at every turn.
Just like they wouldn't put troop withdrawl to the vote, they won't put impeachment to the vote. The fact is ... they don't have enough votes to succeed at either.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Look, we both know there is sufficient evidence to impeach the asshole. The reasons why the weakneed democraps won't impeach are probably some complicency in the impeachable offences. I can't figure that one either, but we both know the repukes would never allow a 2/3 majority to go forth. Therefore it's a non-deal, but will go down in history as one of the larger travesties of justice in our government.
ViRedd
New Member
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Don't try and over-think this one med. Clintons and Bushs have covered each others tracks for years. They yell at each other, but they are close allies.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Yep ... I want Sheehan to replace the traitor Pelosi ... rest assured Sheehan will not be the speaker of the house ... the DNC would select someone else ... but yes ... Pelosi needs to go and probably be charged with war crimes as well ... and there is PLENTY of evidence listed in my threads ... which you have failed to dispute by the way ... to show impeachment is in order ... but you always seem to forget that ... just like Pelosi ... you and her would get along fine ...
... and as far as the issue ... am afraid I don't have cogent thoughts on the matter ... I admit I need to be better aware of taxes and how it works ... but I'm not ... to dry and complex for the brain ...
ViRedd
New Member
No offense, GR ... but this is exactly what is wrong with the country. Way too many folks are completely unaware on this subject. Everything you've railed about in this thread starts with government power. Government power comes from your purse ... and how much the government can extract from it.... and as far as the issue ... am afraid I don't have cogent thoughts on the matter ... I admit I need to be better aware of taxes and how it works ... but I'm not ... to dry and complex for the brain ...
Vi
medicineman
New Member
VI, you're just a bitter old man with a hard on for the government because they caught you cheating on your taxes. Now everything evil that you can think of is the governments fault. I'll agree the government is evil, but I don't take it personally. The government does some good things like food stamps, welfare, SS, Medicare, etc. all things you think are evil because they cost you money. Pitiful.
