What do you think of Obama's plan to crack down on overseas tax loopholes?

I am FAR from rich, and have been a card-carrying Republican most of my life. It would be far more accurate to say that Republicans are more concerned with people keeping what they earned than in being the "party of the rich". It would also be accurate to call the Republican party the party of "if we do something lets be sure to do it right" as opposed to the Democrat's typical "Oh my god we have to do SOMETHING, even if its the wrong thing". Please do not speak of what you do not know! Oh, and by the way, I actually think this idea is a good one! The only danger is that companies affected will work diligently to pass this along to the ultimate taxpayer, the consumer.

I don't mind helping the helpless but we help too many lazy, clueless people in this country.

In the 60's and 70's there were a lot of companies that moved to another country for cheaper labor and cheaper taxes, this is a fact. they live here and profit from living here. Yes off shore accounts should be taxed. All of them need to be investigated and doesn't matter if it is a person in gov. or a big business, it needs to be investigated and names put out and they should be taxed like the rest of us. President Obama did say he would go after those accounts when running for President, glad to see he is.May be it will bring some of the manufacturing jobs home. I am tired of material that falls apart in 3 t0 6 months.Tools that don't even last 3 months. I have even gone so far as to look up on the Internet just who makes things in this country and how we can get them. More people should try it.

Typical Progressive thoughts. There is nothing to keep a company based in this country other than a favorable business environment. Take that away and the company drags up and takes everything with it. Follow this idea through to it's logical conclusion. We will soon be buying what used to be "American made" that has to to imported back in. The only businesses operating will be McDonald's and Walmart, but they of course will be based in China. Who'll pay for universal health care then? Not the "rich", they'll be in the south of France. It'll be us schlubs who work at the aformentioned McDonald's and Walmart.

I, for one would like to wait for the screech prior to assigning bias. One problem in this country is that when it comes to politics are are too my way or the highway. Black or White. My party rules only apply vs. your party rules only apply to every situation. I would enjoy seeing discussions on issues, not which party is better or as I read earlier, ha ha ha, my party is in and yours is out. The problem is a little bigger than 2nd grade schoolyard antics. Perhaps I'm asking too much to evaluate both parties suggestions and come up with the best plan for our citizens, and if we did, I could finally stop voting for the "other guy/gal" each year regardless of party. I'll keep dreaming. And thank you Obama for closing this hole, not get to work on the others.

I am a fourth generation (moderate) Republican, raised on the "Republicans are more concerned with people keeping what they earned than in being the party of the rich" philosophy. Fiscal responsibility was the core philosophy, but this also means everyone paying their fair share. Under Bush, the Republican party operatives caved in to the rich corporations and individual who don't wish to pay their fair share. I can't say it any better than William Milliken, Michigan's longest serving governor and a leading moderate Republican. In 2004 he issued this statement: "Today, under George W. Bush, we have the largest deficit in the history of our country - a deficit that jeopardizes economic growth that is so desperately needed in a nation that has lost 2.6 million jobs since he took office. To make matters even worse, this president inherited a surplus, but squandered it with huge tax cuts structured primarily to benefit the wealthy and powerful."

If I could vote for William Milliken again, I would. Since I can't, I'll cheer on President Obama's efforts to make everyone pay their fair share.

Who are you kidding? The party of the rich? They work hard for what they have and it shouldn't be taken from them by OBAMA! I am a young person that makes very little. Cannot afford a house. Cannot afford a whole lot, but I choose this to be able to be a stay at home mother, yet still a Republican. Those "rich" people I would say would include my parents. They own a few businesses and have worked hard for them. I don't see their well paid employees working 80+ hours per week, making sure that if there is a problem they stay late or work extra hard to take care of it. Cancelling on a vacation because their employee couldn't come to work. Skipping a paycheck because people haven't paid their bills yet that month. THE "RICH" have to make sacrifices TOO! They choose to take opportunities and WORK HARD for themselves. Now Obama wants to take MORE away because they WORK HARD. What a joke. Why do people think we need to tax the "rich" people more. I don't feel my parents should have the same way of life as me when they work that much, and I choose to stay home with my daughter. My parents have earned it, and and they should get to keep it. They shouldn't have to subsidize for others. What is the incentive for them to pay well and work hard if Obama is just going to take it away. He is crazy, and I don't believe that he understands the basics of economics.

It is true that these big companies are not going to forgo their profits because of a closed loophole. They will raise their prices and it will hurt those that are already struggling. Can't Obama see this?

The party of the rich - seriously?  How about the party of the people who have two brain cells to rub together! Dems crack me up - they are so clueless!!! Let's see who is crying when in a few years time we're all strapped with 70% taxes on our income, in order to pay for our great President's and Congress's irresponsible spending.  A change is what you wanted - a change is what you get!  What the Dems fail to realize is that someone has to pay for all their pork programs to "stimulate" the economy.  And this latest move is very much in character by our socialist-in-sheeps-clothing president. Way to go!

There will be 2 effects from this change. Companies that can't close their U.S. presence will pass the tax along in the form of increased prices for their products. The consumer will pay this tax, not the company. Companies that can close their U.S. elements will avoid the IRS taxation by becoming fully foreign entities. In this instance, it costs jobs and eliminates the revenue from the U.S. based workers. The company avoids exposure to the IRS altogether. Stupid is as stupid does. It's a losing proposition for the IRS and consumers.

The Republicans have not been the party of the rich for quite some time now. Mommy and Daddy brainwashed you pretty good though!

The Repubs still are and will continue to be the party of the Rich. I'm a tax accountant and I can tell you if they tweak this formula just a bit they'd be doing a good thing. Companies use tax havens including Bermuda and Ireland to shuffle money from one pocket to the next avoiding US taxes the whole way. Dual consolidated loss was the biggest thing where using check the box would allow a Company to use a loss in two countries at once. I'd like to hear from a Republican on this board how a corporation being able to use a loss in one year to preclude income in the next is ok but an individual who paid taxes last year, even though they potentially "lost" savings can't use that loss next year to exclude income from taxation in the next year? It's a complete double standard.

As stated above Mult-national corps paid 2.3% tax in '04. Anyone going to argue this is good for the U.S? Anyone think this isn't ridiculous based on how much tax you paid? How about that percentage vs. the businesses mentioned above related to use of Federal funds? Yeah I thought so....

Not true. This is just another way to generate money so that Obama can spend more on his programs. Simply put - Socialism or Wealth Redistribution

Call it republican if you wish. (I am neither repub or dem) But here is my thought. IF you take the so called loop holes out of the tax laws then the middle class loses those loop holes as well. The tax laws will apply to middle class workers as well. Plus the cost of goods and services will go up. So the middle class gets it twice. Now it was eluded to in some post companies are going overseas for cheaper labor and cheaper taxes. There is your answer folks. That argument supporting Obama is the answer the others use to oppose Obama. And no you cannot have it both ways. More taxes mean more outsourcing. Think of the people losing their jobs. Get out of the class wars and get into what is right. Stop being a repub or dem and do what is right. Stop trying to get even and we will be better off. The American people are so much better than this. Or have we become something else?

The richest people in the World ard liberals. You need to do some fact checking. i.e. Bill Gates, George Soros for example.

I understand where the tax accountant is coming from. I am currently working on my CPA license. But LOOK PAST just the tax return. These companies are not going to take on the burden of the additional taxes they are going to pay. They are either going to move out of this country - making MORE people lose jobs or they are going to increase their prices to offset their increased tax burden. Even if they move their whole operation out of the US, we're still going to need the goods. So either way the prices are going to increase to the consumers. That means to all rich, poor, and in between. Do you still believe it is such a good thing looking past just the tax return?

I cannot but expect any less from a socialist democrat. your statement is way off base. It goes exactly to the point many political commentators are making. The Democratic party is out of touch with reality. Obama won only because McCain was a poor choice for Republicans. We should have had someone like Fred Thomson or Sarah Palin. Someone who knows what is going on and not just attempts to grap attention getting headlines that causes buyers remorse once people realize the mistake they made. You'd be surprised at how many friends that are Democrats are kicking themselves for voting for Obama and not someone else.

First, I am a former Wall Street tax lawyer, now a venture capitalist, so I have a little bit of background experience on some of these issues. Second, my interest in this topic is not political but purely economic. Finally, I note that the wording of this poll shows significant bias, and in effect assumes the answer it wants: who doesn't want to close "loopholes?" Just evil Republicans, presumably. But the question is whether this is really a "loophole" at all? Tax policy is pretty wonkish and Democrats get a lot of populist mileage out of attacking the rich and corporations, as if somehow increasing taxes on them will be a costless way of solving out problems. Some tax breaks really aren't justified.

The policy question is whether this policy is going to help or hurt our economy - and US corporations ARE our economy. Obviously only the largest have overseas operations, but a lot of US jobs depend on global operations. The folks who think this is a good idea probably don't understand that (1) US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the developed world, (2) overseas profits are already taxed in the foreign country, and (3) most of our international competitors don't require their mutlinationals to pay ANY tax on overseas profits. This is necessarily a bit oversimplified, but generally a US company opening a sales or manufacturing operation in, say, Ireland, would pay the 12.5% Irish tax, but currently wouldn't have to pay the 35% US tax until the profits came back to the US. (the "2.3%" figure some other posts cite is meaningless, taxes apply to profits, not revenues, and at 35% our rates are really high) Regardless of rates, most other OECD (Western) countries wouldn't charge any domestic tax at all. Now, Obama wants US overseas operations to bear the really high US domestic rate while our foreign competitors effectively pay a fraction of that rate. So, when our ecomony is already suffering, we are going to hand our global competitors a huge tax advantage in order to do some political posturing. The amount of money raised is trivial, andof course assumes that our US companies won't lose any business or profits as a result. This makes sense how?

A lot of people seem to lose their common sense when it comes to taxes. Taxes are like any other cost - when the cost of steel goes up, refrigerators cost more, companies sell less, and employ less people. When taxes go up, same thing. For the sake of a headline, the adimistration is happy to sell US companies down the river.

Perhaps you should ask why a flat tax will never happen. The CPA's know why. And it's not to make middle class mom & pop richer. Some conservatives, when there were real conservatives left, pushed the flat tax. Now the corporate lackey virus has hit the government over decades. The repub strain & the Dem strain just determines the current strenght of the disease.

Shannon: "I don't mind helping the helpless but we help too many lazy, clueless people in this country."

Yes, I was against the banker bailout, too.

Ummm...that income should be taxable in the U.S. I don't care if its a 2 man corp or Merck.

Actually they'll be in brown shirts. The black shirts will be reserved for Obama's national police force that he mentioned during his campaign, they'll be the ones knocking on your door in the middle of the night "show me your papers!"

as it is right now 37 cents of every dollar produced in the US is going to government taxation, you'd think that would be enough to run a country on when you consider that all but 9 cents of that sticks to bureacratic fingers and never makes it back into the economy.

No doubt, your refering to the brown shirts that Hitler betrayed & killed. The black shirts probably the SS. Just explaining your pathetic arguement to those that don't know history. Of course you won't mention the constitutional issues that Bush stepped on for "national security". I'm happy people are wary of "change". But the abuse of our constitution has been not been by one party alone.

Way to win people over, Gary Roberts. When will people like you learn that all you do with that kind of childish rhetoric is strengthen our convictions? This "dumb drone" is happy with the change he's voted in, and is looking forward to more. It's high time big business was forced into a social conscience, since it is clearly incapable of mustering one on its own.

Everybody should pay their taxes - you, me, Merck, and 2-man corporations that make enough profit to do so.

Still going with that "campaign of fear" thing, Captain Marvelous? We grew weary of that long ago. Care to try another tack?

Millions/billions of tax dollars lost per year and you compare that to a Geithner, tax issue(s) !! Big Corp and the RICH are not paying, it's time they pay. Where are all the tea baggers now ??

But the rich are paying taxes. The top 5% pay approximately 50'% of taxes collected.

mjw - the teabaggers are right here... I'm rich and I pay...56% in state, federal, local, fica and medicare. Stick to talking to something you might have an understanding about but don't make claims that aren't true. Maybe our rich politicans and their super rich backers don't pay but I sure the hell do...

The Republicrat --- really 56%? That's your payroll tax but not your effective tax, correct? What's your effective rate that you ACTUALLY pay? Don't you have a mortgage? Kids? Tax Shelters? Other write-offs?

You know that social security and medicare taxes are capped at salaries around 100k. So the more you make over that amount the less you pay as a % of your income. I'd be surprised to find that you actually pay 56% when you look at the bottom line of your tax return. If so, you really need to get some tax counseling. There are ways to legally avoid paying that much in taxes.

My payroll taxes with soc security and medicare is about 34%. I make close to 200k. However, my effective tax rate, that I actually I have to pay for federal is about 18% and my state is around 5%.

I'm a teabagger too. How much do I have to pay in taxes to make you happy? My wife does not work outside the home and last year I paid $52,000.00 in state, county, and federal taxes not including Social Security or Medicare and I donated almost $30,000.00 to charities.

What more do you want of me? How much more do you take before the owner and I close our company and put 85 people out of work?

Did I work for what I have? You bet I did. My wife has never worked outside the home. She did masterful job of raising six children who are outstanding citizens who contribute to society. I worked for $1.75 an hour 70 hours a week to support my family while I finished college. I considered myself lucky when I got a raise to $2.10. I thought I was in heaven when I got my first salaried job and made all of $14,000.00 that year. I started at the very bottom of my industry and learned it from the field to the board room. Did it take time (30 years)? Was it hard? Was it worth it? Yes to all three. Best lesson I ever learned is that the richest man doesn't have the most money. The richest man spends one dollar less than he earns, and the poorest spends one dollar more than he earns. If you take the richest man's dollar and give it to the schmuck who spends a dollar more than he earns, what have you gained--nothing because the poorest man is still going to go out and spend what he doesn't have.

Letsbereasonable-do your research before you write. As a small business owner, I pay over 58% in total tax, If I add in Medicare (which is limitless), Social Security, state sales tax and real estate tax. Here it is.

My income: $157,000.

Tax rate: 31% $48,670

State rate: 8% $12,560

SStax 6.02% $9,451

Med tax 1.4% $2,198

sales tax 7% $10,990

Realestate: 5.16% $8,100

Total: 58.58% $91,969

This goes on line 1 of my income

My company last year had earnings of 3.6M. This goes on line 2 and is then totaled. Of those earnings, I took home the $157,000 and most people will look at what they are taxed based on their take home pay, not what the company keeps. The rest went into inventory, increased labor, equipment, etc. Is this not what I should be doing with the money? But I got taxed on the 3.6M. Ok deduct the $14,000 in mort. interest then my income was really 3.586M. While I voted with Obama knowing that my taxes will go up, if they go up 10% (5 being federal and 5 being proposed for state), I will be raising my income, taking more of the income earned and hiring less people. Since I am a US manufacturer, I don't believe that I should be punished or bad mouthed for hiring people in a recession, adding equipment to make more things, that will in turn hire more people. The people on the right are not necessarily protecting the person making 100M+ per year, but the small business person. Please simply keep us in mind that when you are going after those evil people taking advantage of the system. Based on my take home pay, and my family and I are very lucky in these times, we are no only not taking accepting the system but voting for higher taxes on ourselves. And yes, we started dirt poor and worked our A** off to get here under bank threats, vendor threats and everything else under the sun.

LetsBeReasonable - I respect your tone, thank you. My federal tax rate is 36%, my state tax rate is 10%, Social security is almost 7% and yes it does stop after a certain period but Medicare does not, you are taxed on your entire income. Sales tax in my city is 7.5% plus personal property and real estate taxes. I do not know the exact amount I pay but the government gets allot more than I do and I have NO say in how it is spent. I have no deductions for mortgage interest or for the house or income I provide my elderly parents. I am able to write off charitable deductions but that is about it. I have no problem paying a reasonable amount of taxes and in fact more than my fair share because I have worked hard and been fortunate. But that gives no one the right to demand my money just because I have it. I have never cheated on my taxes or would I ever advocate that to anyone. If everyone paid their fair share mine wouldn't be so much...

Do you manufacture off shore?

If so do you recieve tax incentives to produce off shore?

No, because I am committed to keeping American people working and giving them a living wage.

Your argument makes no sense unless you structured your business incorrectly. If you were a corp then your income would not be taxable until paid to you. Plus your gross revenue is not what's taxed so that's wrong too. You cannot possibly argue that you had $3.6m in revnue but no expenses to offset including the 50% depreciation deduction on new equipment purchased (as mentioned?). If you are receiving that money but none of it was spent on the business as deductible then you're in the wrong line of work.

Basedrum. 3.6 Pretax Net Income, after the deductions you pointed out. 42M sales. We are an S-corp so the pretax net is personal. As you must be aware, this is a typical small business set up. Your argument is inaccurate, nice try.

Republicrat,
I'd be disappointed if anyone had a problem with you or the taxes you pay. I respect your position, and I don't think you should be penalized in any way - you obviously pay your share. People like you aren't - or shouldn't be - the focus of the current national ire.

In no way would I compare you with the corporations that move money around the globe to avoid paying taxes, while raising the costs for the middle class until we don't have the cash to spend on anything but the absolute necessities. We paid record prices for gas, heat, and electricity while the oil companies posted record profits. Then our president told us to "just go shopping" to fix the failing economy. Go shopping with what, exactly? My heating costs alone nearly bankrupted me. I won't use credit, because if I do the credit companies will rape me, too, with abandon. Our national climate has grown despicably hostile toward the middle class consumer, and it's an insult to have to listen to whining every time someone suggests that the mega-rich do their part to support the economy that feeds them.

I can't "just go shopping" to fix our economy. The rich are going to have to shoulder the burden of reviving and nurturing the economy they've bled for too long.

cdahl #4.6

With the numbers you gave, I'd say you need a new accountant. An accountant who knows what they're doing would be able to knock at least $6000 of off those taxes - LEGALLY!

Everyone paying their fair share??? Please, gimme a break. half the mooches in this country either cheat or live off the handouts of others. Ovillareal is one of them...

Excuse me, but less than 50% of Americans pay federal tax.

You can expect a lot more companies to abandon U.S. operations entirely to skirt the IRS. Your fellow Americans will be losing more jobs. The low wage foreign workers will simply have more work. The companies that don't leave will simply pass this tax burden to you in the form of higher product prices. You get to finance the "fair share" that Obama will squeeze from the multinational companies. Enjoy the stupid fruits of class warfare.

Sounds like sour grapes. It's a shame that there's a large percentage of our population that wants something for nothing. This is just another example of punishing Americans who have worked hard and done well. Way to got Mr. President

Daniel - There is a large percentage of our population that wants something for nothing, they're called Democrats... Republicans are simply fighting for what they worked for and trying to keep bitter, socialist liberals from taking and redistributing their wealth. If I sound angry I am. I consider myself a moderate but the more I read some of these posts the more to the right I lean.

You're not the only one who's angry, Republicrat. The more I read of these posts, the farther left I lean.

I work hard. I take no handouts. I struggle to pay my bills, and I pay my taxes. You can call me a socialist, but it betrays ignorance when you do. You people should try your hand at respecting differing opinions without resorting to personal attacks.

Sorry Bob but if you examine the budgets of the U.S. Government for the past 40 years or so, you will find that it was the Republican Administrations who spend, spend, spend. The Obama Administration is attempting to "reboot" the economy due to tax loopholes, generous farm subsidies, the importing of foreign workers, the rebuilding of the infrastructure of this country (roads, transportation, schools, power grid, etc) so that this country will thrive again. The Government's purpose is not to "control you" but to protect you so that you have a good quality of life. Citizens of this country do not have a good "quality of life" when the infrastructure has fallen apart, you can't find a job, and corporations are exploiting the citizens.

There are not protections for the lower middle class. Period. The TRICKLE Down" agenda; Where he raided Social Security and started the Republicans grand scheme to send jobs abroad, destroy unions, destroy government oversight of financial criminals, etc.

And last but not least, to continue the lie that health insurance for everyone is a govenment give-away that will allow the consumer no choice in PCP.

It is ther Socialist screams that the vast majority of this country is starting to figure out. Socialism for the corporations; nothing for the workers who provide essential services.

As for "spend, spend spend"...where were you when Bush and co. were giving out billions in non-bid contracts to the military-industrial complex?

You people are nuts! If you want to remember NAFTA was President Clinton's baby. Also all these Hollywood liberals that have decided to stick their noses in politics, you think they don't all have money stashed overseas to protect it? Then you talk about the infrastructure have you ever notice who does all that work? There is usually one white guy working while about five Mexicans stand around and watch. I thought Obama wanted to save "American jobs" what a bunch of hot air. Oh and by the way Bush couldn't write law thats another branch of the governments job. I guess you could ask Pelosi about the Dem's first hundred days, oh now I remember they made the cafeteria more green and healthy. I wonder what that cost us? I don't know why we cant have just a flat tax of like 10% everyone pays it and no loop holes for anyone!!!

sueca, please examine the behind the scenes records for the previous 8 years. Yes, the Republicans in Congress abdicated their fiscal responsibility to the country, but in ALMOST EVERY CASE the Democrats wanted to spend more! The Republicans have already started doing their penance. However, all of us are going to suffer the penance for the current Administration's socialist tendancies

sadie lady - NAFTA had near unanimous bi-partisan support. Only Ross Perot seemed to be against it. Both Bush and Clinton supported it as did Newt Gingrich and his gang of thugs.

You comments about white vs. Mexican are racist.

By the way, you really lose a lot of credibility when you start referring to "Hollywood liberals". There are a ton of "Hollywood conservatives" out there too, but they just don't get labeled by FOX News as such.

D Merriam - really...check out the CBO. Reagan proposed more than the Dems approved in the 80s during 7 out of 8 budgets.

Not talking about Reagan, point was previous 8 years, since everyone (including me sometimes) wants to blame Bush for everything.

But during the previous 8 years, the GOP had the majority in both houses and had the exec branch from 2001-2007 so how did are the Dems to blame for trillion dollars deficits on wasteful "social" programs like the fiasco in "bringing democracy to Iraq"?

Since when did spending money and spending money on a social programs become "socialist". If that's your definiton then every non-3rd world country is socialist.

From a strict Constitutional sense, The US Gov't exists ONLY to provide for National Defense, and to provide a framework for interstate commerce. All else is (again from a hard-core perspective) on shaky Constitutional ground. Let me ask a grammer question: Is it "The United States IS" or "The United States ARE" Your response will reveal all about how you view our Country!

Oh, by the way, I actually don't disagree with Obama on this one. After all, fair is fair. I pay my taxes to support our Country, as should all. I don't have to agree with everything we spend on, never have, never will. Freedom rings where opinions clash!

The GOP lost the House majority in 2006. That's how Nancy Pelosi became Speaker. That's when the economy started going down the tubes. The GOP has never had a solid majority in the Senate. The RINOs reliably voted with the Democrats (McCain, Snowe, Collins, Jeffords). Tom Daschle and Harry Reid used their "minority" status to effectively shutdown the GOP.

I love the backing off of the majority argument as "the economy started going down soon after". As any economist can tell you there is a delayed reaction to the affect of the government. If you really want to argue that the Republican congress from 01 through 06 had nothing to do with this downturn then I have some land to sell you in Fla, cheap.

Take a moment and read these post. Some blame the repubs for spending and our woes. Some blame dem for our spending and woes. We all know we are deep in debt and going deeper. So we as a fine American people try to place blame for it instead of fix it. We are still spending money we haven't got. We are NOT fixing the problem by spending more. All of them are wrong. Dead wrong! Fix the problems do not blame someone else for them and continue to add to them. We all know the problem. Too much debt. Too much taxing. Too many free rides. The answer is not Equal taxation. Equal benefits. And more spending. Both parties need to spend less. Equal taxation is a fairy tale. Equal tax percentages would actually lower their taxes. And put more burden on the poor. Imagine if the upper class got welfare benefits to make it equal. Forget equal and fair. Those are just words. Get into the real world. This is life. Life is unfair. Our Government needs to read, understand and live by our Constitution. You know the one for the people by the people. We are letting them do ends around it and get away with it. That is the problem with our Country! All politicians are guilty. Including the present.

It's easy to spout idealogies but the kind of policies you're suggesting is utterly protectionist. What you're advocating is essentially asking U.S. companies to not expand their operations overseas or risk punishment. This will make U.S. companies far less competitive against foreign companies. That kind of closed economic system is impossible and catastrophic in today's world.

I also find it amusing how easily people forget that the reason why companies outsource job overseas is because U.S. labor is far too expensive. We in the U.S. have certain expectations when it comes to salaries, benefits and quality of life. Often times those expectations crosses the line to evolve into "sense of entitlement" and cease being reasonable. What company in their right mind would want to pay $12-15 an hour with health/dental/retirement benefits for low skill workers such as call center operators which you suggested? There's always two sides to a coin and there's no way to fix a problem by only studying one side of it.

You are an id**t. What we need to do is lower the tax burden on companies so it's profitable for them to stay here and NOT outsource jobs to India. Companies are (for the most part) owned not by their CEOs, but by stockholders like you. And you would scream and yell if these companies didn't make you as much profit as they could. Right now, sending jobs to India is the best way to maximize profit.

And the other thing to remember is that corporations really don't pay taxes. They just collect them and move them on to the IRS. WE pay all the taxes. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! That'll show 'em President Obama.

Nukeman - the reason companies go offshore is for lower labor costs and to avoid paying taxes. The US has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world, especially for business. How much more do we need to concede to these monsters?

Nukeman, my Corporation pays taxes so what are you talking about? What tax percent do you pay? If Obama raised all is constituents taxes to the max level maybe you wouldn't be so quick to suggest someone else pay more. 36%, Federal, 10% State, approx 8% for Fica and Medicare, plus sales tax now up to 10%, personal property taxes, real estate taxes, excise taxes on gas, cigarettes, liquor and whatever else. When are ALL of you going to wake up? If you paid THESE taxes would it be enough? Raising taxes on someone else is great, unitl it is you...

At face value yes, the U.S. have one of the lowest tax burden for the average single wage earning family. However, that's just the tip of the iceberg and in reality, things aren't that simple. Many countries with heavier tax burden such as Sweden, France, Netherlands and so on also provide things for their citizens which the U.S. government does not. Things like health care, and occupation retraining comes immediately to mind. Instead the U.S. government passes the cost of those things to employers and the individual taxpayers. If we were to factor in those costs into the tax burden for the average U.S. citizen, you will see a dramatic jump in those same numbers which seems "low" right now.

Nukeman,

Way to make an assumption. I own a manufacturing plant that draws raw copper ore, stamps metal and manufactures product. Higher taxes on profit is not the issue, neither are wages. Most manufactures will point out that wages are offset with shipping costs. Its the other costs that we have and overseas companies don't such as unemployment insurance $6,250 per worker or $3.00 per hour, health insurance $22,400 per worker (our paid share-perhaps we should pass this onto our worker?) or 10.76 per hour, workers comp of $4,600 per worker $2.21 per hour, and others such as OSHA, EPA, and other govt agencies. I approve of all of these costs. I disapprove of the US govt letting free trade acts not force our foreign competition to meet the minimum standards that they dictate our workers need to live. Fair trade vs. free trade. Allow us to make the profit and then force us through taxation or tax incentives hire more people turning the economy. Do not reward me by saying I can make more money by opening the facility in Guadalarja, MX that we recently turned down. It is against our MADE in USA philosophy.

My friend, this new tax has nothing to do with outsourcing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

I do agree that it has nothing to do with that. I just want to see goods tariffed / taxed or services taxes that are sold by US companies to US consumers, when the US companies fire US workers to hire Non-US people to sell us cheaper goods, that eventually we will not be able to purchase because we do not have jobs. Thanks for the honest and accurate comment.

cdahl: This kind of tax policy also sets a dangerous precedence for the individual worker though. I'm referring to the U.S. citizens who are sent overseas by U.S. companies or just voluntarily moved to a foreign country to work for any company. As of right now their annual income earned overseas is not taxable by the IRS until they bring it back into the U.S. (similar to the corporate tax code regarding overseas profit). Who's to say the IRS won't start taxing their income (which aren't earned on U.S. soil)? This question is becoming more prevelent as more skilled (higher wage) workers are going overseas for jobs these days. If I were getting taxed in such an unfair manner, I will seriously consider reliquishing my U.S. citizenship simply out of principle.

Gordon H. I like your arguments and they are sound for very large companies. My point is that I don't want us to eliminate US jobs for cheaper labor to sell in the US market. For example, our neighbor works for ADP. He group had 10 people, sent 8 jobs to India and she is one of 2 left, and training her replacement. This is because the people in India cost $20,000 and there are not any benefits added to their costs. She believes that after she is done training her counterpart in India she will be outsourced as well. ADP passes on the lower costs to the US company that may follow through to the consumer. I would rather see a tariff in place that keeps jobs here and pay a higher price. I see a large danger in shifting our jobs overseas in any capacity. If you don't have an income you can't purchase a product and that is bad for all of us.

I think what you fail to realize is that the only thing being closed is the loop hole - not the necessity to pay taxes. If these so called businesses move out of the country and locate elsewhere then they will pay taxes wherever they call home. I for one am tired of hearing the excuse that we must allow the giant corporations and exceedingly wealthy people get by without paying taxes or else they will get mad and take their toys to play in someone else's sandbox. Let them. The bottom line is that paying a fair amount of tax on profits is reasonable and something a truly responsible business should be willing to do. If businesses want to raise the price of their products to cover their tax bill then that will be tempered by the governing force of the market place as the market will not permit companies to thrive who have become uncompetitive.

Hurray for the tax loop holes, Hurray! Hurray for torture! Hurray for tax breaks for the top 1%. Hurray for no choice! Hurray for wire tapping Americans! Hurray for privatizing Social Security! Hurray for anti gay sentiment! Hurray for unprovoked wars! Hurray for illegal arms sales! Hurray for no health care for 50 million Americans. Hip Hip Hurray!

USA,USA,USA,USA rha rha rha!

We are Christian country, yea right!

Our richest major corporations have been ripping off the American worker for decades and now when President Obama does what many of us have yearned to see done -- make these billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, some posters scream as if it is their money being taxed.

If you are one of the billionaires or even millionaires, raise the roof. Have fun. Pay your super accountants to try to find you a hole to hide your often ill got gains -- sweatshops with no worker protection in 3rd world countries -- nations that allow the abuse of child workers, unsafe work environments, starvation wages, etc.. These corporate gangsgers exploit our workers and they exploit foreign workers. They have the consciences of grubs.

Otherwise, thank this sharp president-lawyer who, while not always right, is on the side of the middle class. He wants to build the middle class. LEt me share with you what a DuPont family member told me in 1968.

"Power to the People? What a joke that is. Do you know what my family and other families like mine -- who created this country -- would do if the people ever got the Power? Well, I'll tell you what. We'll pull our money from this country and let it collapse economically."

That was in 1968. In what year did the major corporations, many owned directly or indirectly by these "founding families" start "oursourcing" American Jobs? It's been quite a while now, hasn't it? Obama needs to lock down outsourcing, including hiding profits in the Cayman and other places. If these unpatriotic vultures don't like a democracy that is designed to be for the people, by the people, they should move to a nation that is NOT a democracy. If they refuse to pay taxes, they are parasites. And how about the AIG party money being returned to the taxpayers they milked? Enough already!

Bah humbug.

td3k- "Fair Amount". If it was a fair amount then none of us would be having this discussion and corporations would not be looking for tax havens... That is what these "crazy, right wing nut jobs" have been saying all along but you liberal socialistic leaning liberals have refused to hear!

This is really not an issue of companies or individuals not wanting to pay taxes, this is an issue of companies and individuals being tired of the government taking to much. No government has the right to tax anyone at 40% to 50% percent. That just wrong and robbery. No wonder these folks work hard in huding their money. They are sick and tired of being punished for working hard and being profitable.

Republicrat - I do not favor excessive taxes on business. I don't believe a 50% or higher tax rate is fair or what we are talking about here. Keep in mind that the policy that President Obama is talking about applies to only multinational companies that thru the use of loop holes and other legal means have effectively reduced the amount of taxes they are paying to as low as 2% and 3% or less. I would hope that you believe that 2 to 3% is not a fair amount for wealthy corporations to pay. There is a common ground that needs to be found and I think we can find it.

td3k - That is not exactly true. Many times off-shore accounts are set up to defer income and reduce tax liability to a more reasonable rate, such as long term capital gains versus ordinary income tax. If the federal government wanted to simplify the tax code, eliminate deductions and collect from ALL working Americans it would eliminate the need for extraordinary high rates on those that do not cheat and claim all their income. The government needs to eliminate all their sneaky little taxes that they slip in on us and by doing so people would not be forced to look for ways to cheat. Tell me this... How can Obama and company have any credibility with you when half his staff has tax problems and they suposedly helped write the tax code. Charles Rangel, Geithner, Daschle etc...

Republicrat - nobody likes to pay taxes, regardless of the rate. But again, what is "reasonable" and "fair" may vary greatly among people as to what that means. It appears to me that the average US tax rate on businesses falls within the average of what other developed countries with large economies charge their businesses. Cheating to reduce a tax burden down to the single digit range or less is not justifiable in my view and is not fair to the average American who pays their full share of tax as required by law. With regard to Obama's staff tax problems those have all been addressed and corrected as far as I understand. I am in favor of any person or any company being required to pay their fair share - no exceptions. I did not agree with the deal that Geithner received where he didn't pay any penalties on his back taxes. The average American would've had to pay and I agree that it sends a poor signal when any high official is allowed to skirt the same penalties that should apply to all of us.

Seueca - respectfully, what is wrong with the way these companies operate? It is there company not yours. You didnt come with the idea to open up shop. if you work for one of these companies (regardless of your contribution), you are just that; an employee that can leave at any time. small business owner, large business CEO; when they started working, I don't thik their charter was to employ people or be an employment service. They planned to make money by any means necesary.

I would agree with you on watching the hill if you want change, The companies are doing everything they can to make money within the limits of the law; which is fair. change will have to come through regulation. but be carefull what regulation you ask for, the results of some things may be different than anticipated...

Because as a company of the U.S., they enjoy protections from our Government - yet they do not want to pay for these protections. Let them leave the country and attempt to deal with a dictator, or other form of government. Let the CEOs leave their homes, etc. and move to the foreign countries.

I believe that we want U.S. Corporations to be here in the U.S., employing the citizens of the U.S., and paying their fair share of taxes as the average wage earning citizen does.

Corporations should not be able to "pick and choose" what parts of the American Dream they want to have, and then look to Congress to write laws to shelter their profits, and fail to pay for the infrastructure of this country.

As "td3k" said above "let them take their toys and leave." We are tired of hearing of their threats of leaving while they "rob the coffers of the U.S. Treasury" (and by that act the citizens of this country) of the taxes that they should be paying.

Sueca: These companies *do* employ citizens of the United States. They *do* pay tax to the United States government. The issue at hand is whether they do those things enough. If things are as simple as you suggested, why aren't these companies manufacturing goods here and then shipping them overseas? The answer is simple, it's because the cost of manufacturing goods (even low end goods) is far too high compared to overseas. Factoring in shipping costs and import tariff, there is no way these global U.S. companies can be competitive against their foreign counterparts.

The fact remains that in various fields, overseas labor cost is only a fraction of their U.S. counterpart. This remains true even in skilled labor dependent industries such as IT, Bio-tech and Finance. Why pay $60,000 annually to hire a tech worker in the U.S. when you can hire one in Asia for $20,000? Here is the one thing that no one here in the U.S. wants to hear because it means less money in their pockets. Ready? The U.S. cost of living is way too high thus driving up the wage and benefit requirements. Until this problem is solved or we wait until the cost of living standard for the rest of the world to catch up, we will continue seeing U.S. based international companies creating jobs overseas instead of here. You can't have it both ways.

Mike: How creative. I have one suggestion. Why not just hand the Treasury over to the very wealthy and let them run our budgets for health, schools, infrastructure, etc.?

Why not have no taxes for anyone? That seems as sane to me as the idea of making a man or woman earning $12,000 a year pay the same as a man or woman alloting themselves salaries of six or more figures.

How about just taxing those who earn more than $500,000? I mean, how many toys do the very rich need? Doyou really think they would buy homes for the poor, pay for good education for public school kids, think of the American worker when they create their shareholder inticements? Greed is born in the insatiable appetites of those who have and want more and greed is limitless.

Military Vet For Obama - What you advocate is not fair. If you want a socialist country move to one but America is for the land of the free. That means if you work hard, take chances, save and invest your money you're rewarded. If you slack off, spend more than you make then you pay the consequences. The rich look for tax shelters to avoid the excessively high taxes imposed on them by people like you. EVERYBODY that works and earns a living above poverty level should pay their fair share based on a percentage of their earnings. The rich pay more because they make more and of course they pay sales tax, personal property tax and real estates taxes on their toys. Remember??? Quit drinking the koolaid and come back to your senses...

Mr. Obama is pulling the money out of your pocket my friend. This will only raise the cost of the goods we all buy. Why have companies shifted so many jobs out of this country? It has nothing to do with the tax codes. It has everything to do with the American consumer wanting a better price on everything they buy. If you don't want to see Amreican jobs leave this country that only buy American made goods.

Tell the truth....what kind of car do you have? Toyota? Honda? How about your TV.......Sony? Panasonic? Your clothes are made in China, your computer in Japan, your shoes in Korea. Those that blame the GOP are only diverting the attention from themselves.

If you want American wealth to stay in America then bite the bullet, buy American, stop blaming everyone else for your bad choices and selfish ways.

Don't be fooled by these idiots who say that companies will leave in droves to avoid the US. Nowhere in the world does a company have a fair shake in business then in the US. To get those advantages you need to pay higher tax rates. Companies are begging our governmentto be allowed in! Stop the B.S. There is no place in the world like the US market place! ( why are all those foreign car companies here!)

Also, what about the smaller companies who don't have million dollar tax firms telling thm how to avoid taxes. Screw them also?

Good post Mike

If you examine the size of the Government over the past 40 years, you will see that the size of Government increased during the Republican Administrations. Also, you will see that the "shadow Government" - meaning government contractors increased tremendously during the Republican Administrations. The Government decreased substantially during the Clinton/Gore Administration. Clinton actually had a task force headed up by Al Gore entitled "Reinventing Government." Thousands of cost saving plans that were put in effect, that were ignored during the Bush Administration. The Government appeared to be "sitting on their hands" during the Bush Administration due to the Bush political appointees who were heading the various federal agencies. Political appointees who had neither the background, education, or skill sets to be heading those agencies.

The IRS needs to be redirected towards the corporations, not the wage earning citizens. That is precisely what Obama is doing.

Corporate taxes are always passed on to the wage earning citizens both through increased prices and through reductions in expense (wages for one). Most corporations work very hard to earn a modest return on the investment capital. Oil companies are popular to demonize, but they earn only average returns. The billions in profit have to be put into perspective with the 100's of billions capital investment.

You want to reduce the prevalence of something...tax it. You'll see what the result of higher taxes for business is. I, for one shut down my business and fired my employees so I wouldn't have to spend more in taxes. Why work harder for a smaller return?

Just can't stand it can you? Can't see anything he does as being good? Your are taking the GOP down with your ignorant clammering.

Yes to tax loop holes! Another great platform the Reb. can run on! Dem.'s do't get mad at these people, smile and tell them to keep on talking/blogging etc...

Obama could cure cancer and they would say he's going to put insurance companies out of business!

I see. Because business will try to pass the cost of taxes on to consumers we should just give up-- just let them have their way. Let them buy up the country, why fight it Let them own the Senate. True, the U.S. is the oldest continuing republic on the planet but so what? Money always takes over in the end, right?

Bend over, America, get used to receiving a really big corporate bonus.

I see. Because business will try to pass the cost of taxes on to consumers we should just give up-- just let them have their way. Let them buy up the country, why fight it Let them own the Senate. True, the U.S. is the oldest continuing republic on the planet but so what? Money always takes over in the end, right?

Bend over, America, get used to receiving a really big corporate bonus.

from around the block - I'm trying to see something good but everytime he opens his mouth it costs me business or money. Meanwhile he is laughing out loud at all of us. He is living the life of a king while he tells you all about the sacrifices YOU & YOUR family need to make. Obviously you are not going to listen or take into consideration anything anyone tells you so one day you are going to wake up in America and say "what happened?" The tax loophole is really not the issue. The bigger issue is his philosophies and the direction he wants the US to take. He is anti-business, anti Democracy, anti American. This country was built on freedom of choice and hard work. It use to be you were rewarded for your hardwork and now he wants to penalize you for your success by taxing it away. Does that sound reasonable? Good luck...

Companies will leave if the government taxes their profits? So let them. Buh bye. Let them set up shop overseas if they've got the stones for it.

Then we can tax their imports. I'm talking big import tariffs, too. Punitive tariffs.

If you want to do business in America, pay your American taxes. No more free lunches for the corporations. If you want to set up shop in Guatemala and pay your workers 20 cents an hour, on your head be it. Though I would feel bad for the Guatemalans.

A flat tax puts everyone on a level playing field. If you make $10,000. a year of $10,000,000. a year. With a 15% flat tax $10,000 = $1,500 tax and $10,000,000 =$1,500,000 tax. And with a flat tax it becomes almost impossible to cheat and the Government makes a heck of a lot more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I think you're confused. The people with millions and billions--those are the very people who would love nothing more than a flat tax. Their mouths water at the thought!

Let's say you make 20,000.00 per year. Your fellow citizen makes 200,000.00 a year. Now let's say the "flat tax" was %10. Do you mean to suggest that the man who has 180,000.00 left over after paying is taxes has the same tax burden as the poor schmo who as 18,000.00 left over?

A flat tax is a regressive tax. It hurts the poor and working class and profits the rich and powerful. Bad policy, bad idea.

Ok, so married or single you pay 15%. Deductions for kids, donations, tuition, mortgage interest, rental property expenses and a hundred other things just go away, right? If no, then your back to where you started!

It sounds good like most simple minded plans to appeal to the simple minded to get their votes. Reality check please!

Everyone should pay the same percentage, let's say 15%. Without a flat tax you just encourage people to hide their money while creating a class war. BTW...whoever said that democracy was fair, its just the best system avail able and rewards people for hard work.

If you examine the actual statistics for the U.S. Government, you will find that this popular misnomer "Democrats expand the U.S. Government" is false. It has, and always has been the Republican Administrations that expand the size of the federal workforce. Why do you think we have such a huge deficit? The Clinton/Gore Administration ended with a record surplus! All of that surplus has been taken by the number of government contractors working for the federal government, the Iraq War, and other errors of the Bush Republican Administration.

My advice to you, Clay, is to stop watching Faux News - oops I mean Fox News.

Thank you for referring people to actual data. I teach economics and statistics (at a university) after 14 years as a business person (creating more than 700 jobs during that career). Just Google U. S. Bureau of Statistics and follow the link to the official site that records data for the U.S. The good thing about this site is that the data is just that--real data. The collection and recording process does not change with a change in parties. What you will see, if you can use Excel and the statistics functions is that GDP has followed a well-defined growth curve since we went to the industrial age. There is only under-projection, never over-projection growth. Under-projection growth occurred during the early Reagan years (you can debate among yourselves whether it was Reagan or Carter's fault) and during the latter part of George W. Bush's second term. In short, neither party can be called the party of growth. We have, notably, reached the point in the curve where growth would theoretically grow with bound at a rapidly accelerating rate. Obviously this will not hold. My guess (and I do mean guess) is that a new technology that significantly changes the basis of our economy will determine our growth curve for the next 60 or so years. Perhaps it will be the replacement of the gasoline-fired engine with something more powerful (and hopefully more environmentally friendly).

In the late 1980's, several people including Professors Wu and Chu (Nobel winners and the latter being tapped by Obama to oversee technology and research advances) were able to synthesize near-room-temperature superconductors. A superconductor by definition does not lose energy to its surrounds. What a great idea for replacement engines. And they could be powered by a simple battery. Or how about the hydrogen fuel cell? The biggest market for it may not be the car industry but the housing industry. Imagine having your own private energy source at your house. The days of massive power outages would be gone. Repairs could be handled quickly. And no more loss of electricity through power lines. Of course these are just two of the "what'ifs" that could be revolutionary and practical.

wrote:

If you examine the actual statistics for the U.S. Government, you will find that this popular misnomer "Democrats expand the U.S. Government" is false. It has, and always has been the Republican Administrations that expand the size of the federal workforce. Why do you think we have such a huge deficit? The Clinton/Gore Administration ended with a record surplus! All of that surplus has been taken by the number of government contractors working for the federal government, the Iraq War, and other errors of the Bush Republican Administration.

My advice to you, Clay, is to stop watching Faux News - oops I mean Fox News. Sue, I would suggest you pull your head out of the sand. Yes under Bush the government grew because he did cave in to democrats in congress. But look a little beyond the past few years... Democrats have always attempted to expand government and have always run up the deficit. Look back to the "new deal"... look back to the origins og "social Security"... Democrats pushed it as a way to help... swearing they would never tap into that money. Once in effect... those same democrats saw that money sitting there and like a kid with money burning a hole in his pocket... they had to grab at it... now we have problems. Look at Medicare... same thing.... bleeding heart liberals got their one "universal Healthcare" shot in with that one... and they are screwing that up too. In most cases, regular medical insurance is less expensive for retirees than medicare is... (which is FORCED upon them).

If you want to discuss history, Pull your head out and look truthfully at the FULL history....

Clay

Dem's encroach on your freedoms! Are you kidding me! Here are a couple of Bush's ideas. Wire tapping Americans, against a women's choice, the Terri Schiavo case when they tried to deny a husband from removing a feeding tube for his brain dead wife.

What can be more outrageousthen the last item. Bush flew to Washington from his home just to sign a piece of paper to deny this man his rights. Should a hospital and families consult with a Reb. before making a personal decision

You must be living in a different country!

You people still don't get it do you. You signed a contract with the Federal United States Corpororation that calls itself the Government of the United States. That government has signed contracts with each State for certain trade offs -- one is, that you give up your soverienty as a free human being and because you own nothing - no gold or silver or land - you are a serf or better yet - a peasant and you have not rights that the government doesn't want to allow. If you think I'm wrong about this - try gathering in huge crowds and defy the Federal Government on important issues. You'll find your Army or other military that is supposed to be protecting you - encarcerating you. Give it a go you tough monkeys. See how dumb your freedom thinking really is.

IT is called enforcement so the tax evaders can become law abiding citizens..ANd live up to their duties as citizens and corporate citizens. What do you mean by "Black Zebra Puppet"?

if we are going to have "Enforcement"... shouldn't the person that the President puts in charge of the IRS be honest enough to pay his taxes (before appointment)? a Cheat doesn't exactly demonstrate values or inspire confidence in the system....

SOrry about the last line question it was posted in error

- i couldn’t agree more. the folks that are for this plan have a problem. They are confusing the morally right thing to do with reality. I am all for morality but reality puts food on the table. Forward thinking people. think forward

I suppose we should just expect corporate america's elite wealthy class to just pay their taxes honestly huh? The same people that totally ignored the risk of mortgage back securities? Or the same people that were running Enron and Worldcom? Reality is that the wealthy have not paid all their taxes and there is a lot of money that is made in the US that goes untaxed and we (middle class) are bound to suffer from higher tax rates stemming from the shortfalls said lost revenue has helped create. People need to be monitored and regulated; they can't be trusted.

If he can get this past congress, then I will vote democrat for the first since Cater.

As has been listed a few times, this is only the first step in the process. The second step in the imposition of a HEAVY import tax on their products if they decide to move completely out of the USA.

Maybe if our over reaching, money grabbing non producing government politicians would stay out of their business, companies would stay in the US. These politicians put more restrictions on companies... making it cost prohibitive for them to operate, then cry that they leave.

What makes any politician think they know more about business than businessmen? Congress had Big oil execs in front of them to grill them about obscene profits (what... the 3 cent profit per gallon??? compared to the enormous taxes the government includes for themselves?).

Politicians are the reasons for our problems!

You are correct! Well said sir.