Obama announces plan to close tax loopholes*

That 210 Billion is over a 10 year period so it is 'only' 21 billion a year!
While not a small number per year, I'll take it, I like how numbers are bumped up by using a 10 year figure.
When Trillions are spent in a heartbeat 21 billion seems like pennies.
The government today is like a drunken sailor running the bar!
No offense to sailors or drunks!

Give me smaller Government, less taxes and some common sense leaders!

The Senate housing bill would expand an existing $300 billion program called "Hope for Homeowners," which encourages lenders to write down an individual's mortgage if the homeowner agrees to pay an insurance premium. The program, which is set to expire in 2011, is intended to swap out a homeowner's high-interest rate for a 30-year fixed loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

So far, the program has been a dud.

When it was established last year, Congress envisioned helping some 400,000 troubled homeowners. But because eligibility requirements were so strict, one borrower has completed the refinancing process and only 51 more are in the works, according to statistics released last week.

This is just one example of why Government should not try to fine tune the workings of private industry.
The loopholes were created when Government attempted to fine tune something and left a gap that someone legally used to their advantage.
If they would just use the KISS rules life would be better.
Simpler and smaller.
Less likely to have loopholes if the rules were not so complex!

OK, I'm still hearing the same arguments as last year.
Due to the economic disaster we found ourselves in, both the Democrats & Republicans were forced to run their Presidential campaigns on a promise of "Change." The only difference, according to the campaigns, was who could effectuate this needed change faster & better. One side said we needed lower corporate & capital gains taxes & the other side we needed to target this "Change" on helping the middle class. The American people spoke in November & said we wanted the latter instead of the former.
Now, every time Obama proposes the change that he won election by proposing, all we hear is the same "Cut corporate Taxes" mantra that we rejected, & then we hear "What happened to all the "Change" that Obama promised?"

I agree with Kevin when he said this:

KLook wrote:But lets give it a shot and see what happens, I am no expert on international tax shelters. Wish I were! It does not sound like it will do any harm but I wouldn't hold my breath for the 210 billion to come in.

We've tried the other way for years & it has made things worse. If Obama's loophole closing proposal doesn't work we can always reverse it & fire him in 2012. We voted for CHANGE so let's try it.

61% of 35% of all voters is not "WE" voted him in. But those who didn't vote really need to hold their peace. So lets not pretend the majority of "WE THE PEOPLE" voted for the change. 2010 is coming up and if "WE THE PEOPLE" don't do their part and retake control of the "government" "WE THE PEOPLE" deserve what we have now "socialism".

Bill S.

You can`t count people that did not vote if thats what your doing, this president won by both the popular & electorial vote. In my book thats we the people if his policies don`t work then we the people can try someone else in under 4 more years. Myself I think the plan to close loopholes is the right thing to do as I said before, nobody gets a free ride.

BillMarti wrote:61% of 35% of all voters is not "WE" voted him in. But those who didn't vote really need to hold their peace. So lets not pretend the majority of "WE THE PEOPLE" voted for the change. 2010 is coming up and if "WE THE PEOPLE" don't do their part and retake control of the "government" "WE THE PEOPLE" deserve what we have now "socialism".

Bill S.

I would say that is not relevant to the topic which is the proposed closing of tax loopholes that allow some corporations & individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes (that you & I have to pay or we go to prison) & providing incentives for businesses to employ Americans.
Denial of the fact that Obama was freely & fairly elected as President, just like all the Presidents before him, and is now OUR President, is really no argument against this proposal.

My comment certainly does matter to this post you guys claim the majority of the people voted BO in but it is simply is not true the majority of 35% of voters versus 100% of voters is far from the majority of the people and the true count is 20% of the people elected BO. And I didn't vote him in as a majority of this post didn't vote him in. And the electoral collage circumvents voters rights. And no I don't believe going after corporations for taxes Bo needs to clean up his tax evading cabinet first and then get the other 40% that don't pay taxes to pay their fair share. The Flat tax would make sure everybody pays their fair share because their are no loopholes for anybody. Bo has already proved he's inept by his tax evading cabinet and the nice lady that declared everybody that does not agree with you extremists as terrorists now what is the new name for the real terrorists..............Hmmmmmm. You should have never documented your insanity once let alone twice declaring our vets as as possible terrorists. See who's going to vote for your budget er I mean taxes in 2010.

Bill S.

You guys don't seem to understand that the tax "loophole" did not allow corporations to skip out on paying their fair share, it merely allowed them to defer paying tax on amounts earned in other nations and also reinvested in those nations. Eventually a corporation has to pay the tax on the income brought back into the US.

The law allowed corporations to invest more rapidly in other nations for the benefit of US consumers, namely those receiving customer services. The law was designed in properous times to allow US corporations to build customer service departments and plants in other countries who were willing to do the jobs that Americans weren't willing or able to do.

This new law by Obama isn't an incentive to create jobs here. It's a disincentive to creating jobs elsewhere. The economics of domestic job creation, even with this rule, still don't make sense. Labor is still cheaper elsewhere despite the new tax.

The measure is merely a short term revenue raiser for the feds.

Americans, as usual, will pay for this in reduced customer services and increased prices.

I agree with you mike what Bo should have done regardless of what debt was left to him by Bush he should have looked to see how that debt could be paid down before putting us into farther debt that will never be paid up. They bashed Bush for 8 years and now that there is legitimate cause to bring out the fact that BO is more inept than Bush by increasing our debt more than 8 times in his first 100 days they cry foul. As I said in the past "BOTH" parties are responsible for this mess but the more that this current government tries to hide the more comes out about how much more they hid. Why can't they just be honest about they're screw up and admit it and do more on to correct it instead of looking on how they can screw whoever they can to pay off their mistake. Taxes ,loopholes and lying is not the way to correct this. The honest way is to stop spending until you have a plan to pay debt down And keep an eye on those that are truly in need.

Bill S

Thanks Mike for a dispassionate & direct response to the subject. I disagree with your conclusions, as follow:

mikeandgerry wrote:You guys don't seem to understand that the tax "loophole" did not allow corporations to skip out on paying their fair share, it merely allowed them to defer paying tax on amounts earned in other nations and also reinvested in those nations. Eventually a corporation has to pay the tax on the income brought back into the US.

Even if this was true (which is debatable) how is it in U.S. interests to allow these tax deferments for money invested in OTHER countries? We need that tax revenue right here & right now.

mikeandgerry wrote:The law was designed in properous times to allow US corporations to build customer service departments and plants in other countries who were willing to do the jobs that Americans weren't willing or able to do.

We are no longer in "Prosperous Times" & we need those jobs right here. (ever have a computer problem & call for help?..I don't know about you but I can't understand a word spoken to me from HP reps in New Delhi!) I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who would jump at the chance of doing those jobs right here.

mikeandgerry wrote:This new law by Obama isn't an incentive to create jobs here. It's a disincentive to creating jobs elsewhere.

That's a distinction without a difference.

mikeandgerry wrote:The measure is merely a short term revenue raiser for the feds.

That's debatable as well, but I'll still take short term raised revenue as opposed to none at all.

mikeandgerry wrote:Americans, as usual, will pay for this in reduced customer services and increased prices.

The price of these goods & services is already beyond what most Americans can afford anyway. Why do you think we buy Chinese products from Walmart, almost exclusively right now? (as I see it, that argument is just another "You better fork over your lunch money or we will hurt you." threat that we've been hearing for years. They already have "Hurt" us badly & it's time to stand up to the bully & fight back.

And the bully is who exactly? Be careful you don't side with one bully over another....

BillMarti wrote:And the electoral collage circumvents voters rights.

It does nothing of the kind, the Electoral College is about states rights. Our country is a republic.

Jeddbird wrote:Even if this was true (which is debatable) how is it in U.S. interests to allow these tax deferments for money invested in OTHER countries? We need that tax revenue right here & right now.

The deferrments are temporary. The money is small. This is political grandstanding. The reinvestment deferral was consistent with fairness and need.

Jeddbird wrote:We are no longer in "Prosperous Times" & we need those jobs right here. (ever have a computer problem & call for help?..I don't know about you but I can't understand a word spoken to me from HP reps in New Delhi!) I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who would jump at the chance of doing those jobs right here.

Those jobs won't be coming here regardless of the tax. The investment was already made and the tax already deferred. It could help keep some jobs here but you don't seem to understand that like the illegal immigrants from Mexico (supported by both parties for the additional cheap labor) the jobs you are referring to, weren't desirable to Americans. They are low pay, high skill service jobs. They are aptly suited for an educated but developing Indian workforce.

Jeddbird wrote:That's a distinction without a difference..

No it isn't. The end result is that you as a consumer will suffer the loss of the additional tax. You will not benefit from increased national income, just decreased service or service quality. Those Indian techs do a very good job, BTW.

Jeddbird wrote:That's debatable as well, but I'll still take short term raised revenue as opposed to none at all..

You'll be paying it in the end, one way or another. And that is my point concerning all tariffs.

Jeddbird wrote:The price of these goods & services is already beyond what most Americans can afford anyway. Why do you think we buy Chinese products from Walmart, almost exclusively right now? (as I see it, that argument is just another "You better fork over your lunch money or we will hurt you." threat that we've been hearing for years. They already have "Hurt" us badly & it's time to stand up to the bully & fight back.

You have no idea how cheap and abundant your goods and services are. You are wealthy in America. You have no perspective and thus you think you are downtrodden. Nothing could be further from the truth. Historically, the only bully in the global arena is the American consumer.

coaledsweat wrote:

BillMarti wrote:And the electoral collage circumvents voters rights.

It does nothing of the kind, the Electoral College is about states rights. Our country is a republic.

Who has the final vote for the president----the Electoral College not the voters

Bill S.

You don't get what mike is saying Jedd. Just removing the "incentives" as you call them is not going to offset the cost of making things in this country. And as mike said, they will just go around it another way.
By the way Samhill, I would point out that the Sappi Paper is not a paper, it is South African Paper Products International. Yes, it is a MILL. I am not sure there is a mill left in Maine that belongs to a US company. There are not many left period. There will be none left sortly as the forest has been decimated and the cost of everything mentioned before along with high energy cost will put them under. As it is, the Baileyville mill near Calais has been shipping raw pulp out of the port in Eastport because it is cheaper to process into paper in foreign countries and sell it back to us. More money and jobs overseas. Now that is closing also.

The Northeast used to have almost all the manufacturing capacity of this country. It moved down South because of unions here, lower taxes, less regulation, and lower energy cost.(warmer climate and nuclear energy/TVA) Now it has gone overseas and everyone is crying but you still want your cheap shoes, cheap cars, cheap whatever. The Northeast in particular is never going to see manufacturing again because to many people have to much money and they want the dirt and smell and traffic and ugly view etc to be somewhere else. It was said last year in the fights over windmills here in Maine that we have become a culture of "NO". No anything new, different, bigger then I have, or anything. Volkswaggen is building a new plant in Chattanooga TN that is a billion dollar investment in that town. Another German company is coming in to make solar panels and creating more jobs. They make Toyota's somewhere down there and the KIA plant is in Montgomery ALA. There is a reason for that. They have infrastructure to move goods in and out, they have cheap(er) labor, and they have much lower energy cost. Should we force them to go up to Detroit and build cars just because that is the way it is supposed to be?
LIke it or not we are in a global market place now and the American worker is going to suffer. Unless they stop trying to be equal to the CEO's in earnings just because the union can kill a business and the gov. backs them up. Pay/competency=performance/diligence/loyalty. Otherwise I won't hire you, I will hire a mexican,indian,chinese, whoever because these people have what Americans used to have and no sense of entitlement.

Kevin

I said give it a shot because it is going to happen. I heartily disagree with it. What bothers me is that we never "go back" to revisit things that were successful. Just because the Great Depression occurred does not mean things were broken before hand. If this passes and it does not work, it will be left that way because doing away with it will be called taking a step backwards. Heaven forbid we step backwards! That is another long discussion.