Unbelievable...

[Silver]

Mar 3 01:00 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's Treasury secretary says the administration will unveil a series of rules and measures in the coming months to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that Obama will propose legislation to limit U.S. companies' ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation in the U.S. He also said the administration will try to limit wealthy Americans' ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MN08G1&show_article=1
================================================== =
Man oh man...its absolutely hilarious....Obama and Geithner going after TAX EVADERS....
Their freekin' hypocrisy is boundless....
All he needs to start is to lock himself in a damn jail cell
and then have his friends surrender to the IRS ...

Rahm Emanuel
Charlie Rangle
Tom Daschle
Nancy Killefer
Hilda Solis
Al Franken
Ron Kiric

ALL DEMOCRATIC HYPOCRITE TAX EVADERS....

[MtnBiker]

Rahm Emanuel
Charlie Rangle
Tom Daschle
Nancy Killefer
Hilda Solis
Al Franken
Ron Kiric


They need Patriot training from Joe.

[sgtdmski]

Here's a novel idea. If your want more rich and corporations to pay taxes in the United States, lower the tax burden. Introduce a flat tax or a tax on consumption and then remove all the tax credits.

Wow how about that, then maybe even the Democrats would pay their taxes on time.

dmk

[PostmodernProphet]

my prediction?.....they will attempt to impose a tax on any international corporation that has ANY connection to the US and try to tax everything they earn anywhere simply because they have a connection to the US....

the result?.....international corporations will sever ALL connections with the US.....that will have wonderful effects on our economy......

[Jagger]

Here's a novel idea. If your want more rich and corporations to pay taxes in the United States, lower the tax burden.
Explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes. Then explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.

[PostmodernProphet]

Explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes. Then explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.

explain why you never answer questions, only ask them....

[Lizabeth]

Explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes. Then explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.


Read Karl Neustadt. It is where supply side economics came from. It is not necessarily unique to Pres. Reagan.

[Jagger]

Reagan Increased Federal Government Spending 80%



In 1980,the fed*eral government spent $591 billion. In 1988, the federal government spent $1,065 billion, an increase of 80%.

[Jagger]

Read Karl Neustadt. It is where supply side economics came from. It is not necessarily unique to Pres. Reagan.

Where does Neustadt explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes?

Can anyone explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

[MtnBiker]

Explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes. Then explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.

Ask Art Laffer.

[MtnBiker]

here is a portion of a speech giving by former President while in office;


But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy. If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in ****.

I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation--and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues--but the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 'percent of their after-tax income, as they have every year since ****. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the **** investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances--two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth $2.5 billion. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective--demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates; they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.
.

[DannyR]

Where does Neustadt explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes?

Can anyone explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

Lowering taxes helps the economy by allowing citizens more money to spend on their own. Its inherently wasteful to pay taxes and the government then spend the money for you, as you lose funds in the transfer through administration costs, etc.

Second, lowered taxes means its less likely that those who pay taxes will seek out ways to avoid them. This means they pay more as well.

That said, the economy has generally performed better under democrats than republicans, because while the republican model is successful, its not the optimal method of enhancing the economy. Most spending is done not by the rich, but by the average middle class. Democratic policies generally favor the middle class, giving them more money than under republicans, and growing the economy even more.

[Jagger]

here is a portion of a speech giving by former President while in office;

.
What former President?

[Jagger]

Lowering taxes helps the economy by allowing citizens more money to spend on their own.

How does lowering their taxes to allow them to have more money to spend result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes?

Is lowering taxes to allow the citizens to have more money to spend how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

[Jagger]

Its inherently wasteful to pay taxes and the government then spend the money for you, as you lose funds in the transfer through administration costs, etc. Does that mean we should abolish taxes that currently pay for the U. S. military and let the free market determine how much we invest in national defense?

[MtnBiker]

What former President?

Would it make a difference?

[Kathianne]

What former President?

Kennedy?

[SupportUSA]

not suprised that he did somthing like this..

[Jagger]

Kennedy? Where does Kennedy explain how lowering their tax burden will result in the rich and the corporations paying more taxes?

[Jagger]

Can anyone explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

[PostmodernProphet]

Can anyone explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?
I think you mean Kennedynomics....