Forum Settings
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Debate #1... GO!

#1 Oct 05 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
35,256 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Except he's right. There is no specific tax deduction for moving jobs overseas.

Except he's wrong, every company that moves jobs overseas writes off the majority of the expense under various parts of the tax code.

And so does every company that moves jobs across town. It's a business expense deduction. If you spend $1 million dollars opening up a new office, you get to deduct the cost of opening up that new office. Where that office is doesn't matter. Whether you laid off an equal number of workers at the old office or not also doesn't matter. Suggesting that this in any way equates to a "tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas" is absurd.

The idea that because line 75 of the tax code doesn't read "Deduction for outsourcing American jobs like an economic vampire" that there is no tax break is staggeringly ignorant.

There is no tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Was that too hard for you to understand?

It'd be easy to prevent deductions related to outsourcing, you could just pass a law.

Not a very good one though. How exactly do you decide that a given dollar amount of deductions were from "shipping jobs overseas"? Let's imagine for a moment that I run a large multi-national corporation which is constantly hiring, firing, and laying off people in offices and plants all over the world. What criteria do we use to decide that this person's job was "shipped overseas"? And then how do we decide how much cost there was associated with that? Any legislation which attempted to do that would be a disaster from start to finish.

I mean you could, unless it was such a precious loophole that the political party owned by outsourcing businesses filibustered it.

When more than 50 Senators filibuster something, it's not really a filibuster anymore, is it? You're talking about a bill written purely so idiots like you could make the very point you're making and which even a number of Democrats realized was vapor-legislation. This was not a real law. It was a name and a label put on the agenda by Reid, knowing it would fail, so that he could blame Republicans for failing to stop jobs from going overseas. Way to be a drone there Smash. I kinda expected more from you.

Want to know the best way to prevent jobs from going overseas? Make job creation easier for companies in the US. Or at the very least, don't pursue an agenda that directly makes hiring people and building products in the US more expensive. That's got to be a better approach than inserting yet another impossibly defined exception into our already complicated tax code. This, BTW, is how we end out with all those loopholes that Obama and folks claim they oppose. Perhaps we should not make the current problem worse? Just a thought.

Edited, Oct 5th 2012 5:24pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help


Recent Visitors: 3 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (3)