The letter suggested executive actions that the President could immediately take, effectively bypassing Congress on 6 different income tax issues. The results could usher in $100 billion of tax increases.
This was Earnest’s response to the question:
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans.”In English history, there’s long been the concept that “the king cannot have Money without the House of Commons,” and therefore, the king could not do such things as demand that parliament fund a war.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of. But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally.”
Does President Obama think that he’s some kind of monarch?
This is a roundabout way of emphasizing that this thing simply isn’t done, no matter how “historic” one person thinks himself to be. It is taxation without representation for one man to place himself above the entire representative process and to dictate where people’s money goes.
The broader issue at stake is one person trying to legislate for the entire nation. It is quite literally never a good idea.
America was founded as a nation in defiance of “taxation without representation,” which is exactly what the sum of these executive actions or orders are tantamount to achieving. In the late 18th century, the U.S. rebelled against the Intolerable Acts, as well as the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act and eventually broke free of Britain to establish its own set of laws based on Lockean philosophy and English jurisprudence.
The point is that the notion one man can effectively raise taxes by executive order is sheer hubris that defies the entire fabric of the nation. No one man is above the process. We are a constitutional republic and a nation of laws; we are not subject to the whims of whomever happens to win a presidential election.
Bernie Sanders’ letter also identified the following possible actions:
- Eliminating the “check-the-box” classifications for foreign-based subsidiaries.
- End the “carried interest” break that benefits hedge fund managers.
- Stop off-shore “tax inversions.”
- Eliminate the ability for foreign subsidiaries to make loans to domestic headquarters as a way to transfer cash without considering it income.
- End the ability to avoid corporate taxes via real estate investment trusts.
- Revise valuation discount rules that adjust the tax basis on inheritance taxes.
Given the administration’s history on taking direct action, along with the President’s own “phone and pen” assertions, it’s a distinct possibility that these revenue-generating ideas could be set into motion.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/261944-youll-want-hide-wallet-understand-white-houses-latest-idea/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Education
This problem is going to get worse. What I think you want William, is to see the government be ground to a halt. IE, when your tea bag heroes handcuff Boehnor from doing anything, you want to see the inaction extend all the way to the White House so that the POTUS just sits there and does nothing. I honestly don't like executive action, but it's what happens when both houses of congress are full of children who won't agree to compromise on anything. Obama is not the only POTUS to use executive action and I fully expect this trend to continue. Reid and McConnell have been snapping each other in the ass with a wet towel for quite a while now and Boehnor is not typically willing to pass legislation unless he can do it with only a minimum of Democratic support because his base will go into an uproar at the injustice of letting tax and spend Democrats participate in legislating.
ReplyDeleteYour pissed because after seeing the rise of the tea baggers who were sent to Washington to do nothing but block as much legislation as possible, which is not what the founding fathers intended, Obama is deciding to end run around the baggers.
What are you talking about Max? The House passed a clean Home Land Security budget yesterday by bipartisan vote. The Senate Democrats where the one's who would not allow the Bill to go to conference. Screw amnesty, let's just make sure we fund the government no matter what edicts Obama passed down from above.
DeleteYour love of tax increases never ends. Obamacare taxes are just starting to settle in. A year ago January Boehner caved on all sorts of tax rate increases. More taxes were collected last year than ever before in history.
Three Trillion Dollars a year is not enough for the Federal nobility.
The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances. The majority of people in DC now are not Democrats, but after witnessing yesterdays vote I will admit that a majority are still progressives. No doubt they will continue to spend out their asses.
I see nothing wrong with what Bernie Sanders believes is up at the White House. Ending tax cheating that is only available to a select few because let's face it the average middle class Joe the Plumber doesn't have the financial means or status to participate in any of these proposed changes only the select few who are buying our government do.
DeleteThis is exactly what is meant when we as democrats talk of leveling the playing field. Repubs call it income redistribution, common sense calls it making things fair and equal for everyone who pay taxes.
Three Trillion Dollars a year is not enough for the Federal nobility.
DeleteThis years proposed budget, 4 trillion dollars with new tax increases.
The question that remains unanswered, where is the responsible government that cuts waste, reduces duplication?
Where are the corporations that grew and prospered as a result of our government and it's strength. Bailing out and with their money. Lou American corporations were highly successful because in our country we built a first class infrastructure, had first class laws protecting the rights of the properties and development of those corporations. It is why many countries don't share in the wealth, they don't protect their corporations. It is foolish to think that Apple or Abbott Labs who formed Abbvie offshore to hide taxes didn't succeed because of where they were, where they had the strong intellectual and property protections that our government provides and the strong infrastructure to enable product development. That shit costs money to provide but they have chosen to use this country and flee. And lou I don't want to hear the nonsense about taxes none of these fleeing tax hiding companies actually pay anywhere near corporate tax rates. You might get some agreement out of me on tax rates when you apply them to small businessmen like yourself. The corporations..... fuck 'em they had a lot of help along the way from this country.
DeleteWant to make corporations pay more in taxes, fine, let the people's congress pass a Bill to accomplish that. Not an edict from some organizer hack who couldn't run a lemonade stand.
DeleteI find it absolutely hilarious that the people of the left follow the mantra of tax business more. the results, people pay more for goods and services as business pass the cost of taxes to consumers in higher prices.
DeleteSad Rick that people don't realize business pay no taxes no matter what the tax rate. The reality today, global competition. Charge more for taxes, either they charge more for product, cut expenses (people) or offshore materials, off shore labor or go out of business. Either the business makes a profit or doesn't exist. US business now pay Federal Income tax, state income taxes as well as local taxes. How does a company stay in the US, pay the highest rate in the world in taxes and remain competitive with foreign made goods. The answer, they don't.
We do need to revamp the corporate tax system. Make the initial tax neutral and as corporations grow, tax revenue grows. Our worldwide tax system is being killed by the rest of the worlds territorial tax systems. When we were the manufacturing capital of the world, it made no difference. With global competition today, it matters a great deal.
Bottom line, we change or the world continues to take our businesses for their own benefit.
"The question that remains unanswered, where is the responsible government that cuts waste, reduces duplication?"
DeleteIt's back in the 90's when we at least made an attempt to adhere to the concept of pay/go. What we have today is simply a desire by either party to cut spending to what the other party wants. For as much as people make fun of Al Gore, and there is plenty of reason to do so, he was a person who understood the problem of endless duplication. I think there is an answer to your problem Lou, but there isn't enough political will to attempt to use it. It's more than just a willingness to compromise. I won't bother laying it out though.
On taxes and the belief that a business never pays taxes, I find it hard to believe this when businesses go to such great lengths to avoid paying them. Contrary to the belief that I love taxes out of some redistribution mentality, I believe that taxation serves two, maybe three purposes. The first purpose is to fund whatever the country decides it needs, which at this point is primarily the military, social security and health care of the aged. The second purpose, IMO, should be to prevent the drastic boom bust cycles that capitalism brings. Right now, business is enjoying a ridiculous arbitrage on the backs of the rest of us. Our military protects the flow of oil and goods, our courts protect intellectual property rights (although China violates them) and our open borders allow access to a very deep market that is sort of like being able to sell goods at a flea market without paying for booth space.
Your premise is that business never pays an ounce of tax. I don't agree conceptually with this premise, but even if I concede the point, the reality remains that if business was not allowed to create tax arbitrages, we would see lower profit, higher revenue and yes, likely higher costs on goods, which would decrease some of the appetite to mindlessly consume shit from China. You ask how does business operate in the highest corporate tax environment in the world and remain competitive. You answered that they don't and I agree. The don't because they find countless ways to dodge the tax.
When a business sets up a sham office in the cayman islands solely to claim this is their headquarters, I think all but the most wealthy can see the bullshit in that and rightly get pissed about it. It already annoys me that my income from actually working is taxed at the same rate or higher than the income of someone who does nothing but move money in and out of various investments. But we do this because allegedly, we won't have investment capital unless we help lower the risk/reward profile.
Meh, it's not going to change, but I wish the arguments were a little more honest and thoughtful. The "democrats just want to tax and spend" meme is not only stupid, it's just tired. Everybody wants to spend everybody else's money while preserving their own.
My business is the perfect example. All the taxes I paid were added to the cost of doing business as was labor, facility charges and any other expenses related to my business. A difference is I emptied the bank account at the end of the year, paying everything out in wages, now to me. I loan the money back to the business until the bank account is sustainable. Little is paid in business taxes although I do pay taxes on the wages.
DeleteDishonest, no and it's legal.
Does business operate the same way, you bet. They claim all the overseas deductions and return enough money to make it a zero sum game. The remaining profits remain overseas. The question is, if a business makes a million in France, why should the US government tax that income?
The rest of the world has moved away from that illogical taxation system to the territorial tax system. It would make far more sense to do what the rest of the world does instead of taxing on a different basis. US companies located only in the US get hammered where international companies leave the money overseas. Microsoft gave the government a big kiss when they bought Skype with overseas dollars. A 35% discount on the sale price.
The government acts, business reacts. Wouldn't it be better to bring the dollars back to the US instead of leaving it overseas to invest there?
Pay go is a solution to the problem of over spending. To bad we have ditched the concept to spend it if you want. neither party has exhibited the least amount of restraint in spending. Nor will they as the promises cost money from the ACA, SS, Medicare, Medicaid or the other half of our spending.
"The government acts, business reacts. Wouldn't it be better to bring the dollars back to the US instead of leaving it overseas to invest there?"
DeleteWe've discussed this and it's just plain BS to claim business won't bring money back here and invest because of taxes. When given a previous tax amnesty, the money came back and went right into the pockets of the wealthy. Companies used the money to just buy back stocks or reinvest it again elsewhere where they can arbitrage labor.
Why should the government tax income earned elsewhere? Good question. Better question is why bring the money back at all? The answer in my opinion is that business owners, be it small business or mega corp, want their business to be treated as if it is a living being without actually having and responsibilities that an actual living being has to contend with. In other words, when it suits them, they want to claim US citizenship and enjoy protection of our legal system, but when it comes to paying taxes, they want to claim they are a citizen of the cayman islands or some other kind of sham. They also probably want to keep a lot of their reserves in US dollars, which again, retains a lot of strength because of our military , our legal system and so on. There are many benefits to being a US citizen and as a person who has to pay taxes on his income, I support that franchise.
There is plenty of stuff that business owners do that is legal. I've known people who use the "business" as a way to fund a lot of things they get personal gain on. It's legal but I'd hardly call it honest. Still, I see a difference between that an a multi billion dollar mega corp opening up a sham office somewhere to avoid paying taxes. I conceptually get your argument, and disagree with it. If I had a business, and I might some day as an NP, I might try similar tactics but that wouldn't make it any more right. If the slob who makes hour wages has to pay tax on every last dime they earn, so should everyone else if they want the same rights and protections of the working slob.