Here is recent transcript from inverview of CNBC and Obama.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101865696

STEVE LIESMAN: Let me dive right in and talk about this issue of tax inversion this issue of American companies going overseas to reduce their U.S. tax bill or get rid of it. I take it you're not calling it illegal. Are you saying it's unpatriotic or un-American?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I'm saying is that companies thrive in the United States in part because they benefit from the best university system in the world, the best infrastructure-- although I'd like to see us do a little better on infrastructure. You know, there are a whole range of benefits that have helped to build companies, create value, create profits. For you to continue to benefit from that entire architecture that helps you thrive, but move your technical address simply to avoid paying taxes-- is neither fair-- nor-- is it-- something that's going to be good for the country over the long term. And this is basically taking advantage of tax provisions that are technically legal-- but I think most people would say if you're doing business here, if you're basically still an American company, but you're simply changing your mailing address in order to-- avoid paying taxes-- then you're really not doing right by the country-- and by the American people.


What I want to address here is the very 1st sentence of Obama's response. I have mainly heard this response from Reich. In fact he once told a joke during a speech where he said don't you like to be taxed so you get all these roads and a college systems and the tech companies basically said no we rather not pay any taxes.

But, what I want to address here is how everyone takes his response so lightly. Basically he is saying if you go to the whitehouse and mow their lawn you can bill the government at $300 per hour because you gave a good place for Obama's dog to walk.

The corporations never signed up for the taxes. If they want roads they can pay for them to be built. If they want educated students they can offer scholarships. But the government says, we are going to tax you as we wish because we gave you some un-quantifiable benefit back.

Thus corporate and income taxes should be stopped. The government has no right to mow your lawn and bill you on their terms. Just as you have no right to mow their lawn and bill them. (yes some cities have ordinances to do this)

Thus Obama and liberals are creating a great wrong. The corporation never signed a contract for the roads or schools, thus they should not have to pay for them. BTW, corporations would be triple taxed. They pay taxes in the country they do business, then they bring profits home and are taxed again, then they are taxed on the inflation while the money sits as cash, then they are taxed on the dividends, and then taxed again while the cash sits in some account somewhere. In the meantime Obama nd Biden brag about not have any stocks or bank accounts because they can tax you to support their fat paychecks and pensions and avoid market risk.

mmmkay, couple things...

where did Obama say anything about his lawn or his dog?

also, if there are no roads to and from the corporation, how do they deliver their unregulated, poison products to the masses?

Eh, I feel like he's saying that anyone who does business in the US is enjoying the fruits of a functioning society, and therefore owes taxes, because that person is deriving a benefit.

The problem is that that benefit, as Obama frames it, can't be avoided--by the individual.

If you can't avoid a benefit, you can't avoid a tax, since benefits are taxed.

So really what Obama is saying is that, because the government is the source of everything that manifests, the individual can never not owe the government taxes. In other words, citizenship is slavery.

I think it's pretty great to have a reporter called Steve Lies-man.

>if they want roads they can pay fpr them to be built.

Lol.

I wouldn't be opposed to abolishing corporate taxes as long as theyre counterbalanced by a big increase in high income personal tax breaks. Robert Reich made a good argument that they're counterproductive.

Jesus. Is this what passes for "Conservative" around here?

I am a gun owning fiscal conservative. But that doesn't mean that all taxes are evil or that everything Obama spews is wrong. In this case, the premise is almost correct. If you have a gas tax that is earmarked for funding roads, that is an attempt to get those who benefit from a public service (drivers) to help pay for the service they are receiving (roads).

Some infrastructure elements benefit society and are prerequisites for a society to be healthy.

Many view roads as one of those elements. Having those who consume that resource pay more than a general taxpayer is reasonable.

So one trick is to define the elements which support society but which are not likely to be provided efficiently via the free market.

The second trick is to decide who is consuming and benefiting from that public resource.

I sort of agree that there are important infrastructure elements. Certainly, I draw the line earlier than most "Liberals" on what is a public service that needs to be provided by the Government. But let's allow public schools and universities for the purposes of this discussion.

So we bypass the debate about "Trick One". It is certainly debatable, but let's have that as a separate discussion. Let's allow public education as a public good.

The real trick here is determining who is consuming that education. Who is benefiting? Obama says that corporations are benefiting. This is where I disagree. It might be an easier target to go after faceless corporations to pay taxes for the public good of education. But the real consumer is the student. The student receives an education that s/he can take to any corporation. And then the corporation pays for the "consumption" of educated resources by paying directly for that resource.

Obama's position is merely a ploy to raise taxes on the most politically easy group to attack instead of insisting on having the individual make personal decisions and pay for them.

The same could be said for some educational elements though (wrt your example).

Yep. And in my post I accept for the sake of this discussion that education is one of the infrastructure components.

Lawn mowing should be a nationalised industry.

The more I look at it a gas tax and tolls is worse than Hitler. In Hong Kong, the subways are profitable. You have the choice to use them. The government could place fees on public land adjacent to roads, like to charge a land tax within 1/8 mile of a road, however to charge a gas tax or toll or car registration to fix roads on public land dedicated for use to allow people and commerce to migrate freely is a sin. The government could install pumps that have a $5 a gallon tax to improve roads, you can use as a choice, if you feel they are not up to par. You could also send a check in to the government to improve roads.

The human has evolved to move freely on land, we don't need to give a tax to government to use the roads they see how fit. The idea of private roads makes we want to throw up. The idea we use public land so some private company can profit off it comes out of an evil James Bond movie. Vomit Vomit Vomit, spit spit spit!

The insane thought to spend public money on trains, roads, subways makes be sick. The profits of past transportation projects should be sending massive green to the budget surplus. The railroads send green to the government.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt91.htm

steelhouse

I will donate $5000 to a private contractor of my choice to fix roads in my area to ansi standards if government promises never to build or collect taxes to build roads again. There are 100s of broken curbs, weeds covering sidewalks, pine trees tearing up sidewalks, and if we were allowed to fix the roads ourselves the roads would not have bumps and potholes. The curbs and pavement would be clean and smooth. The fallacy of private and government property.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-...5_1_gene-scott

Guy raised $5.6 million for the library.

No you won't. And even if you did, 99% of everyone else wouldn't. Ever been to Detroit? Most people wont even mow their own stinking lawns nor paint their own houses.

Congratulations. You just donated a few inches of concrete. The logistics to make it work would just be a comedy on its own, let alone putting into practice things like maintenance. Is the current system perfect ? No. Is your system ****ty ? Yes.

STTTEEEEEELLLLLLLHOOOOUUUSSSEEEEE

Remember when liberals used to say that high taxes don't discourage people from doing that action...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...e-tax-rate.htm

LOL US having the best university system and even more so the best infrastructure. Delusions of grandure...

You're still a treasonous piece of sh** if you turn your back on your country in this way. And, regardless of the spin, that's exactly what these people do when they make decisions based on minor impediments to their profit.

Bahbah and jiggs congrats you are both clueless

No, that would be you. Certainly on a moral level.

Look, as a CEO in the U.S., you have a choice to make. The profit incentive is secondary, if you call yourself much of an American. I'm sure you disagree, believing that profit margin is everything and these decisions are forced upon them as such. So there we are.

Yeah Jiggs, when you have a dumb tax policy with dumb exceptions things like inversions happen. It's also a board decision not a CEO decision to sell a company, although you being clueless about how anything works and just ranting angrily because you despise your miserable existence isnt a real shock at this point.

Oh please. It applies to them as well. It's still a choice to make as an individual. Just like these jaggovs had to make, whom you likely agree with:



Why am I not surprised that you'd be the first one to apologize for unethical corporate and executive tax dodgery?

... says the forum's nut-low for energy/ecomomy discussion.

It's always amusing seeing trolls like you rationalize that I must just be generally "miserable" when I challenge the false assumptions of establishment douchebags like you. Quite the contrary. It's a catharsis. Hey, I visit a few times per week. Ironically, you are here 6-7 times per DAY, creating zero threads and just generally being a d*** in response to everyone they encounter.

Project much?

Jiggs, stick to transition communities and and peak oil myths, you are way out of your element on this one.

Shocking Jiggs is a protectionist as well. Not a terrible policy he can't support.

This is so ****ing stupid I'm nearly speechless. Do you pay more than your minimum possible tax? No? Ok traitor.

Yea, if corporations are breaking the law then punish them, but if you don't like what they are doing change the law. Then again, when the Republicans block attempts to change the law that's pretty loltastic.

Although attempting to shame them into changing there behavior should work too according to the AC crowd...