Why does Obama want to destroy Social Security?

[grizzaholic]

For someone who supposedly sucks at analogies that's a pretty damned good one Z.

Even a broke clock is right twice a day (right, GATW?)

He is busy making a new cuckoo.

[kalm]

To paraphrase a famous basketball player, "we may make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!"

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=681&sid=2727443

There are reports the First Lady and the Queen of Qatar recently closed off part of Madison Avenue to go on a shopping spree at a high-end lingerie store, according to the Daily Mail.

Michelle Obama ended up spending $50,000 on pieces from Agent Provocateur, which the Daily Mail says was founded by the son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood.

The luxury brand's celebrity clientele include Beyonce and Christina Aguilera.

Mrs. Obama's reported purchase comes on the heels of criticism for the cobalt blue dress she wore for the President's State of the Union. The dress reportedly sells for $2,000.

CLASS WARFARE!

[grizzaholic]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=681&sid=2727443

CLASS WARFARE!

What ever happened to "can't we all just get along?"?

[kalm]

CLASS WARFARE!

What ever happened to "can't we all just get along?"?

You're right, I take it back. I am sorry 89.

[89Hen]

What ever happened to "can't we all just get along?"?

You're right, I take it back. I am sorry 89.

I'm just puzzled how I can be lumped in as "rich" when I can't afford $50 underwear.

[CAA Flagship]

You're right, I take it back. I am sorry 89.

I'm just puzzled how I can be lumped in as "rich" when I can't afford $50 underwear.

Sure you can. Outlet stores.

[BDKJMU]

The CAP saying the US has an effective rate of 13.4% and the Tax Foundation citing numerous studies showing an effective rate of 27% and being highest one of the 5 highest effective rates in the world has nothing to do with how many countries are included. Even if you included only OECD countries in the Tax Foundation's report, the US is still one of the highest effective rates among OECD countries.

It all comes down to which study & who's stats you give more credence to.

I'll stick with CAP's OECD and US Treasury numbers versus the Tax Foundations "numerous studies".

And which (rather than how many) countries we are comparing has everything to do with the discussion as do things like how depreciation rules are applied in each developed country.

But yes, "US corporate taxes are high" makes for an effective sound bite.

And I'll stick with the Business Roundtable/PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Bureau of Economic Research, Tax Notes International, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, and the American Enterprise Institute studies of of US companies Headquartered in the US to the CAP's "2 studies".

[kalm]

I'll stick with CAP's OECD and US Treasury numbers versus the Tax Foundations "numerous studies".

And which (rather than how many) countries we are comparing has everything to do with the discussion as do things like how depreciation rules are applied in each developed country.

But yes, "US corporate taxes are high" makes for an effective sound bite.

And I'll stick with the Business Roundtable/PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Bureau of Economic Research, Tax Notes International, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, and the American Enterprise Institute to the CAP's "2 studies".

To each his own.

[BDKJMU]

And I'll stick with the Business Roundtable/PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Bureau of Economic Research, Tax Notes International, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, and the American Enterprise Institute to the CAP's "2 studies".

To each his own.

Note the edit to US Companies headquartered in the US.

If the CAP study included US companies not HQ in the US, then that would be bogus. US companies not HQ in the US are of course going to have a far lower effective corporate tax rate. The prime reason they're not HQ in the US is to escape the US's high corporate tax rate and to take advantage of far lower corporate tax rates of other countries.

[kalm]

To each his own.

Note the edit to US Companies headquartered in the US.

If the CAP study included US companies not HQ in the US, then that would be bogus. US companies not HQ in the US are of course going to have a far lower effective corporate tax rate. The prime reason they're not HQ in the US is to escape the US's high corporate tax rate and to take advantage of far lower corporate tax rates of other countries.

A race to the bottom benefits no one except the multinational.

[BDKJMU]

Note the edit to US Companies headquartered in the US.

If the CAP study included US companies not HQ in the US, then that would be bogus. US companies not HQ in the US are of course going to have a far lower effective corporate tax rate. The prime reason they're not HQ in the US is to escape the US's high corporate tax rate and to take advantage of far lower corporate tax rates of other countries.

A race to the bottom benefits no one except the multinational.

A race to a level playing field benefits the US consumer.

You somehow make all those companies relocate to the US their costs go way up: taxes, regulatory, labor. Then they either go out of business, or remain in business by passing those cost increases to the American consumer with large price hikes. So the cost of many goods & services goes way up, inflation goes up (more than it otherwise would). Standard of living goes down. Bad for the American consumer.

[kalm]

A race to the bottom benefits no one except the multinational.

A race to a level playing field benefits the US consumer.

You somehow make all those companies relocate to the US their costs go way up: taxes, regulatory, labor. Then they either go out of business, or remain in business by passing those cost increases to the American consumer with large price hikes. So the cost of many goods & services goes way up, inflation goes up (more than it otherwise would). Standard of living goes down. Bad for the American consumer.

A race to a level paling field benefits the US consumer as long as wages enable them to keep buying.

It's not a level playing field when it comes to labor costs and environmental regulations. Those things have value too. Heaven forbid that the southeast asian worker starts demanding a western standard of living, middle class wages, and poop free drinking water.

[HI54UNI]

6 days since this thread started and still no response to the original question. What say you libs? Why not just admit Bush was right?

[kalm]

6 days since this thread started and still no response to the original question. What say you libs? Why not just admit Bush was right?

It's temporary, SS is currently running a surplus and there's still time to make some necessary adjustments to meet future needs.