Fox News' La Jeunesse ignores effective tax rate to claim U.S. corporate tax "second highest in the world"
SUMMARY: Fox News' William La Jeunesse asserted that "our corporate tax rate is second highest in the world," ignoring the effective tax rate, which is lower for corporations in the U.S. than for corporations in several other countries.
On the March 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent William La Jeunesse asserted that "our corporate tax rate is second highest in the world," ignoring the effective corporate tax rate, which is lower in the United States than it is in several other countries.
As Media Matters for America has noted, conservatives in the media, including The Wall Street Journal, Fox News host Neil Cavuto, and radio host Rush Limbaugh, have pointed to the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent to claim that the United States has one of the highest tax rates in the world. In fact, according to an August 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income because many other aspects of the system, such as exemptions, deferrals, tax credits, and other forms of incentives, also determine the amount of tax a business ultimately pays on its income." World Bank and GAO data indicate that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is lower than 35 percent and lower than several other nations' effective corporate tax rate.
In its August 2008 report, the GAO estimated that "[t]he average U.S. effective tax rate on the domestic income of large corporations with positive domestic income in 2004 was an estimated 25.2 percent." Moreover, in June 2007, the Treasury Department concluded: "If special provisions were eliminated, the top corporate tax rate could be lowered to 27 percent or more than 40 percent expensing could be provided to all businesses for new the cost of tangible investments, and the tax system would produce the same level of revenue." Further, in its Paying Taxes 2009 publication, based on its 2009 Doing Business report, the World Bank-International Finance Corporation estimated that the United States has a lower effective rate of current corporate tax than that of several other nations, including Germany, Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, and Italy. The publication also included a figure that compared effective and statutory corporate tax rates for several G8 and BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China] countries:
From the March 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (anchor): President Obama said last week many of the American jobs that have been moved overseas will not be coming back, but he remains determined to stop the exodus. Correspondent William La Jeunesse reports on the unintended consequences that move might create.
[begin video clip]
LA JEUNESSE: Outsourcing has become one of the bogeymen of the recession, but the economic reality is 15 percent of all U.S. businesses -- 40 percent of those in the tech sector -- have sent millions of jobs overseas in the last 10 years to raise profits and stay competitive, a practice the president has promised to stop.
OBAMA: -- by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY): I don't see any good reason why we should endorse, support, or not vigorously close any shelter that's there. I don't know how it's in America's best interest to allow this to happen.
LA JEUNESSE: But it might not be that simple. As companies with millions, even billions, offshore could relocate completely out of the U.S. to dodge hefty taxes. Or they could simply spend the money overseas, boosting foreign economies rather than our own.
MICHAEL KLAYKO (Brocade Communications CEO): That would be a really tough decision. I think there'd be a lot of folks right now that would figure out how to spend that cash offshore.
LA JEUNESSE: Brocade Communications CEO Michael Klayko says up to a trillion dollars earned from foreign manufacturing and service centers run by American companies is sitting offshore.
Profits are not taxed at the local rate -- say, 12 percent in Ireland or 20 percent in Turkey. But when that money comes home, it's taxed at a combined federal and state rate of 40 percent, which could mean hundreds of billions the Obama administration desperately needs.
HEATHER BOUSHEY (Center for American Progress senior economist): The goal is not to penalize businesses; the goal is to make sure that businesses that are headquartered here in the United States pay their fair share of taxes.
LA JEUNESSE: Right now, our corporate tax rate is second highest in the world. Businesses say the main reason they outsource isn't lower taxes but cheaper labor. While closing some loopholes, Congressman Charlie Rangel says that Washington may be willing to reduce the corporate tax rate below 30 percent to keep U.S. businesses competitive and to stop the bleeding of American jobs.
In Los Angeles, William La Jeunesse, Fox News.
[end video clip]
"news stories"
What is apparently inconvenient to you are the details of this report including your claim of a 30 second political ad. What the report is addressing is the flow of jobs overseas and Obama's efforts to end them. Is that not a good thing to point out. It also discusses the reasons that it is happening. When we talk of tax rates do we always talk about rates after deductions or in more general terms. Your comments are bogus.
Keep your insult to yourself.
Well, was anything you said even remotely accurate?
it is indeed. the statutory rate should be the benchmark, not the effective rate as that is with all the deductions and tied to economic profit. it's always in liberals best interest to downplay how much tax burden we have. it's necessary for their argument to raise 'em and raise 'em.
It's always in conservatives' best interest to inflate how much tax burden we have. it's necessary for their argument to dodge 'em and dodge 'em.
It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of dems in the news these days for dodging taxes, I think it is a prerequisite for serving in the Obama administration.
bingo! head meet nail.
The subject of this item is CORPORATE taxes. I should have been as specfic. Corporate taxes are among the most avoided, dodged and unpaid.
A few Democrats who have made mistakes or purposely neglected to pay taxes altogether are nothing compared to the billions that go unpaid by corporations every year. Yet conservative media is on the case, letting everyone know how burdened corporations are by them.
nobody said that. but to get a lecture from a Democrat about dodging taxes in light of many in their own party who are now in the news for that very thing is a little curious.
it is indeed. the statutory rate should be the benchmark, not the effective rate as that is with all the deductions and tied to economic profit. - jamesB
You've got to be kidding. Citing the statutory rate is to use a number that is virtually never applied in real life. That makes it deceptive. Citing the effective rate is the honest approach because it reflects what is actually being paid.
Using the effective rate isn't downplaying anything. It's stating reality.
no, it's comparing apples to apples when comparing tax rates. deductions, profits, etc change all the time, it changes the context of the comparison.
No it's not, it's an effort to deceive. If you tell a company that they will pay about 40% in taxes in the US and only around 33% in India because you are citing statutory rates, you're denying reality. Almost no companies in either country pay those rates. In reality, companies operating in the US pay about 28% in India they pay about 40%.
If your goal is to be honest, you are on much firmer ground citing the effective rates than statutory rates. I don't see how anyone can deny it.
there are too many changing variables with effective rates so there needs to be a huge asterisk and tax return details for it to be understood in context. that is my point,
The huge asterisk that is relevant is the one Fox leaves out. When only the statutory rate is used the listener gets an extremely warped perspective that is far from reality. If the effective rate is used, the listener hears numbers that are much closer to what corporations pay in reality. The statutory rate is an interesting footnote, but can be disregarded because historic effective rates are a much better gauge to use for making business decisions. Therefore, it's also the better gauge to use when discussing public policy.
Let's take mythical Corporation A in a simple scenario. Corporation A is deciding among 5 countries for setting up new operations. They have a pretty solid idea of what their gross profit will be. They ask me, as their accountant, to calculate where they would be better off setting up operations for net profit. If I only tell them what their net profit will be using statutory rates, am I serving my company well? Or am I being more responsible by using effective rates? When they establish operations, which will they be actually seeing on their income statements?
The answer, of course, is the effective rate. It's the more accurate and honest number to use in business, so it's the more accurate and honest number for the media to use with the public.
Corporations treat the statutory rate like a red headed step child, they use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. They're like dead beat dads, skipping out on their responsibility to invest in their country.
" it's always in liberals best interest to downplay how much tax burden we have."
So you are a corporation? Because if you are not, you just intentionally obscured the distinction between corporate taxes and individual taxes. Anyway, what's your problem? Obama is actually proposing the largest tax cut of all time for the middle class. He's doing this because he can see what a raw deal that regressive conservative taxation has been for the working man. It's time for the wealthy to step up and support their country too.
Now, what the Foxies are aiding and abetting is economic terrorism. They argue that in the name of protecting short term profit it is perfectly acceptable to hold American workers hostage. It's a give us everything we want, or we will make your country suffer mentality. Buncha sociopaths.
wealthy to support their country too? please, who do you think pays the majority of taxes? yes, the mean old greedy rich. and who do you think employs the American workers? yes, the rich. so you can demonize them in your class warfare spectacle all you want but the unintended consequences fall on the workers you claim to be concerned about. think beyond your hatred of them for a minute and you will realize that. oh, by the way your obsession Tommy responded to you on the Varney thread earlier, hurry maybe you can catch him there.
Been there done that. I left a lovely message for Mr.T. Thanks for your concern.
Who pays a larger share of their taxes as a percentag of income? It ain't the corporations, or should I say you, Mr. fuzzy set? What they (you) don't pay could provide healthcare for all and fix SS.
And make up your mind, not so long ago you were insisting it was small business who employ most Americans. You seem to have no real core values, you just want to be contrary. Just like. Tommy.
since when did I say small businesses employ the most Americans? Did you just make that up because I have never said that. your core values are all about punishing success and rewarding mediocrity. not me.
Maybe I'll go back and fish out your posts on Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making above $250,000/yr, maybe I won't. But if memory serves me, you were making that argument.
And nice try, my core values are motivated by my empathy for my fellow human, my neighbors, even you. If you were to fall on hard times and needed a hand up, it's fairly obvious that my heart would open for you in a way that your view of success and failure would not permit you to feel.
My values are those old American values that grants opportunity through equality and promotes the general welfare.
Looks like I was mistaken, my apologies. You did not argue that small business employs the most people. Which is a shame that you didn't as it would have been a rare honest statement by you. As it is, you just want to carry water for the corporate mentality that does not value work and rewards lose morals in pursuit of ever grander fortune.
wealthy to support their country too? jamesb
If they would only pay up on their ENTIRE TAX OBLIGATION and not send their dough around the world to hide...
The Senate panel estimates that wealthy individuals avoid paying between $40 billion and $70 billion in taxes annually and corporations evade $30 billion in taxes a year by using these offshore companies.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/190/story/14341.html
What? No response from jamesB?
He must be off figuring out how he can obfuscate tax obligations...
you want a response. go after them then if it's against the law. If it's not against the law, then change the law. Democrats are in charge now, they can easily do that.
"go after them then if it's against the law."
Until then, conservative media's got their back, making sure America knows how overtaxed they are.
No time to read the details? Here's a sample...
Facilitated by willing lawyers and banks, elaborate semi-legal scams are used to hide cash overseas even as Americans access and use the funds while avoiding the IRS. The scams are extremely complicated by design. They involve dozens of corporations set up on paper in countries that have no tax laws and weak government oversight, such as the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean Sea, or the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. With no real assets, these companies' purpose is to disguise the source of money coming mainly from Americans.
And what of the personal responsability of those that are evading paying their taxes through these "semi-legal" means ?
"who do you think pays the majority of taxes?"
My guess is the people who make the majority of the money.
"class warfare spectacle... think beyond your hatred for them (tax dodging, offshoring corporate reprobates) for a minute and you will realize that"
So, in this economy, where jobs are vanishing by the tens of thousands each month, where people are forced to rely on a tattered social safety net instead of a steady job, you're saying cut these vulgar corporate Marxists some slack and embrace their peevish hatred of doing their part for their fellow citizens? What is there not to dislike about a profit laden company tossing Americans overboard while throwing a temper tantrum over a couple of percentage points on their taxes?
That's freakish co-dependence, it's battered spouse syndrome and it's not good for anybody.
Oh that's right, we don't need no safety net, we have charities to handle it. Not that charities are bad, it's just the same kind of throwing money at social engineering programs that cons get bent out of shape over when liberals suggest government should work on behalf of the people.
Cons. Hypocrites to the bone. Go figure. It's why they got thumped.
first off, before we had your safety nets, charities and neighborhoods and churches and people took care of each other, that was the way it was done. but now that welfare gripped our way of life and out pocketbooks people are so taxed out they barely can survive, let alone contribute to charities. which most of get their money from the rich people you despise with your class warfare boring rhetoric. Too bad you have no faith in your fellow citizens that you feel they need the government to come in and take their money, some concern you fake pretty poorly around here. your fellow liberals may buy it, I don't. and the way you lump all corporations in your sesspool of hatred is so shortsighted and naive, it's amazing. sure, some are greedy, but the vat majority are the sum of their parts, which is hard working Americans who work for these people you so vehemently detest. makes no sense to me. who did you think you're hurting. see the forest through the trees.
which most of get their money from the rich people you despise with your class warfare boring rhetoric. Jamesb
Yeah, like the 30s again. Those benevolent wealthy folks chipping in so people less fortunate could live in this...
Or these days, here...
You chastising anyone for generalizing is pitiful, Mr. " it's always in liberals best interest to downplay how much tax burden we have." So save it. Some corporations are indeed responsible, mostly the ones that can't leave the country, like Starbucks. They don't pay well, but they do invest in their people with very good health benefits and profit sharing. That's a pretty good corporate model, but they are few and far between.
Don't even talk to me about not having faith my fellow citizen, they can't get by if there are no jobs. Period.
Before we had the New Deal and it's ethic of shared prosperity we had tent cities here in America and charities simply could not help them all because they simply were not as large as the federal government.
Now let's look at your impish claims that your economic royalists throw so much money to charity. According to the recent study by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, they contribute a whopping 1.48% of their income to charity. That's really putting some skin in the game. And now that the tax code is going to change, they are threatening, with all the nobility of an economic terrorist, to reduce their contributions because it just doesn't benefit them as much to do so. Boo hoo.
you keep on trashing the rich, punishing and demonizing those that are successful, devaluing hard work and economic rewards and see what you get. Entrepreneurship will suffer, laziness and living off the government will become far more prevalent, people will see that working hard is essentially crapped on by those who won't, or don't, and more and more of their money will go down some rathole wasted by bureacratic politicians thirsty for more power. Some country that will be, talk about a malaise and who gives a rat's behind anymore mentality that will breed and foster more of the same. this country was made great by rewarding hard work and celebrating those that came from nothing to be successful, not stripping them of that just so people can get something for nothing. yes, we need a safety net, what we don't need is the welfare state and socialist income redistribution, or as you put, shared prosperity. anyone willing to work hard enough, two or three jobs, night and day can have the opportunity for prosperity, there is no limit to it. more power to them, I admire it enormously. you want to stifle that, incredible.
anyone willing to work hard enough, two or three jobs, night and day can have the opportunity for prosperity, there is no limit to it. JAMESB
That's the new "American Dream" I guess.
Of course that dream ain't for everyone...
-As a result, since the 1980s, the wealthy have been living increasingly segregated lives from the general population to secure those advantages. And it is paying off: The proportion of upper-middle-class students at top American universities is increasing, regardless of diversity programs.
-Merit (ability plus hard work) was always meant to replace the inherited privilege of the Old World as the route to the top in America. But merit in modern America is at least partly class-based.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/09/america-class-society-ent-dream1007-cx_pm_1009class.html
Nicely done. You've been tearing down these conservative memes with aplomb.
Cheers.
It's astounding to me that these cons are so willing to blame someone who is out of work due to bad management yet the robber barons running things are afforded all deference.
Supply-Side Vocabulary:
successful, adj. 1. having immense wealth accumulated by any legal means possible, be it predatory, dishonest, exploitive, or environmentally irresponsible.
hard work, n. 1. the process by which a business empire is built utilizing public infrastructure, public land, public resources, a publicly educated workforce, and often, public money.
economic rewards, n. 1. money saved by exporting labor to foreign countries where workers can be easily expoited.
You said what I was getting much more efficiently. Thanks Pete, always a pleasure to watch you do your thing.
De nada. Now if I can just remember to do a spell check more often.
Incredible. When you get jammed up you default to that that insulting old saw called moral hazard. As if most Americans given the choice between working for a living or sitting on their couch would choose potatoville. Talk about insulting the American work ethic. You're the King.
You see in reality, in order for entrepreneurs to succeed they need to take risks and if, in the absence of a sturdy safety net, the risk of failure is too great creativity and entrepreneurship will be stifled. It's called shared risk and shared reward. I know sharing is not in the conservative lexicon, but sharing in each other's well being is what makes America great.
Let me ask you. Would you rather live in an America where one income could support a family, or would you rather live in an America where both parents are forced to work two jobs just to pay rent? Forget about higher education, medical care or a healthy diet.
Think of how your utopia of working night and day destroys those cherished moments of family togetherness. What you forsake in your concept of material success is personal well being. Your way produces a nation of forgotten children and families fallen asunder, placed in bitter competition for scarce security. My way nurtures vibrant communities that have no need to fret over making the tough choice between medical treatment or rent. We all know that a secure, happy person is a productive person, so shove your cynical view of American laborers where your head hides itself.
I guess you missed that claim that companies were doing it to dodge "heavy" taxes, which is another in a long list of false claims republicans like to make to cover up the real truth behind their intentions. The truth? Companies have no loyalty to America, they only have loyalty to money. They are outsourcing because they see 3 billion potential customers in Asia and India vs. only 300 million potential customers in America. They prefer living here because we have higher standard of living which is the only reason the traitors don't pull up all their roots and relocate everything overseas.
well obama wouldn't have to bring back jobs from overseas if you and your neo con collective didn't see to it that they were sent overseas in the first place
Ain't that the truth, jbomb?
Personally, I'd prefer that any AMERICAN company with more than 15-25% of it's work force overseas should pay 75-85% in taxes to the U.S. government. Once they bring the jobs back to the good ol' USA, their tax burden can fall to what it is for companies in the USA.
Maybe that's a simplistic point of view, somewhat naive - and maybe my 75-85% proposal a bit high, but I find it rather insulting to call your company an American company when all you do is manufacture your product overseas, employing overseas workers when you could employ Americans here in the US.
If you do that then the company would move it's headquarters overseas and the US Government would get no taxes from the company.I don't think that is a very useful solution.
The other problem is that overseas workers are cheaper. If we bring the jobs back here, then they are more expensive and the company is less competitive. That's why they went overseas in the first place. Alternatively, the company can just go bankrupt. Your argument is the same argument the people of New England were making in the early 1900's when textile jobs were being moved to the south. Drive through New England today and see all the abondoned antique textile factories. They never moved back. The movement of labor is evolution in the making and inevitable.
The solution is to not settle for an unskilled job. Always learn more. Go to school at night, on weekends, but learn new things so you can always be moving up the economic latter. There are periods during life when that is not possible, but I have never met anyone who could not have found time during a 40 year career to improve skills and knowledge. It's all about priorities.
That may be one reason, but not the only one. I've pointed out several times now about the potential customer effect. If I think my main source of income is in China it is logical that I would put the majority of my manufacturing there to keep costs down. To suggest that they put plants over there to take advantage of a cheap worker base and then to turn around and take it in the butt shipping completed product back is foolish. It takes 30 days or more to ship via boat, with more and more american factories switching to the Dell model of produce on demand, that idea makes no sense.
"The solution is to not settle for an unskilled job. Always learn more. Go to school at night, on weekends, but learn new things so you can always be moving up the economic latter."
How much longer will that be the solution?
Constant improvements in communications technology are slowly giving way to a new wave of outsourcing highly-skilled positions. I personally know of one company that outsources its ENGINEERING, RESEARCH and DESIGN work to a firm in India. On our present course, very few job fields are going to be immune from outsourcing. Contrary to John McCain's vision, selling each other trinkets on E-bay is no basis upon which to build a sound capitalist economy.
As foreign nations get smarter and start doing the really skilled labor,
and their economy expands, their standard of living will go up. With
that, their labor costs will go up. Then, their jobs will go "offshore" to
Africa and the Indians will be complaining. For India and China that is
a long distance in the future. 2.2 billion people are two huge economies
to mature.
The alternative is to build a fence around our country and just trade
inside our borders -- protectionism. We did that for many years, but
once the opportunities of trading with other countries was discovered
the only thing that has held back economic growth was our poltical
manipulation of tariffs. Other countries are now in the same position
we were in when we started to trade.
[Our founding fathers added tariff's to the constitution to protect
young industries. For steel that was appropriate in the 1870's when
England far out produced America. However, our "young" steel industry
should have matured, by now, I would think. However, as far as I
know, the United States still has tariff's on steel. They are present
for one reason only. Politics. Politicians raise tariffs on steel to
buy votes from steel workers and to get political contributions from
steel owners (corporations and individuals).]
So far, outsourcing entire companies is not popular. I haven't heard
of anyone getting rich that way. Outsourcing is tricky. If your
customers must deal with foreigners and they don't like foreign
accents or your foreign speakers don't speak English
very well you have a problem. If the foreigners fail to deliver quality, you
have a problem. In such cases the solutions are non-trivial.
In some casees, outsourced work has been brought back.
As for building in China then shippping back to America, transportaion
shipping costs can be insignificant. Before the
depression, a container (one of those things you see in the shipping
yards stacked 10 high or one of those things you see behind a
truck) cost $5,000 to send from China to the US west coast. That
is the major part of the transportation cost. If you selling
underpants you can get a huge number of them into a container.
Amortizing the $5,000 over, say, 200,000 pairs of underpants,
makes each pair cost 2.5 cents more. If Chinese labor works at $1.00/hr and
American labor is $10.00 hr, will the transportation costs equalize the
labor costs?
[$5,000 covers about 1 or maybe two automobiles worth of shipping. That's
why foreign automobile companies build cars in the US. You can always
know about where the boundary is for building overseas versus home when
you find foreign manufacturers building factories in this country. If
transportation costs were insignificant, they wouldn't do it.]
Let's say a Chinese worker can make 4 pairs of underpants in one minute.
That would be 240/hr. At $1.00/hr labor, that's = .42 cents per pair --
less that one cent.
An American worker can make 4 pairs also. But his cost
is $10.00/hr and the resulting labor cost of the pair of underpants is
ten times the Chinese worker's or 4.2 cents per pair. If the American
worker is twice as productive, then the labor cost halves. But that's not the
case. Clothing manufacturing is notoriously hard to automate and still
involves a lot of hand work. The productivity of Chinese workers is
nearly as good as American workers for handwork.
So the Chinese pair of underpants has a labor cost of .42 cents, a
transportation cost of 2.5 cents for a total of 2.92 cents per pair.
The American pair of underpants has a labor cost of 4.2 cents per pair
with zero transporation cost. When manufacturing millions and billions
of items these pennies add up and make or break companies.
How could American labor defeat the Chines labor? By lowering its own
labor cost. That is the only variable available. Lower it to
Chinese Labor Cost + Transporation Cost. Then jobs will stay in America.
[People in country A don't really like to have factories in country B or
any other country. They would much prefer to keep the whole business
at home.]
Here are our choices:
1. American Firm owns factory in China and "exports" to the United States.
[Labor + Transporation: X + Y]
2. Chinese Firm owns factory in China and exports to the United States.
[Labor + Transporation: X + Y]
3. American Firm owns factory in US and doesn't export
[Labor + Transporation: 10X + zero]
American firm loses business to choice #1 and choice #2 unless
politicians get involved and raise the tariff on underpants --
protecting American underpant manufacturers, but starting a trade war.
Foreign country then raises tariff on Software or refuses to enforce
software priacy laws. It all becomes very unpleasant. It's like a giant
real life Rube Goldberg machine.
Americans must continue to educate themselves if they want to improve
their lot on the economic ladder. If they relax and don't pay attention,
then the world will catch up and pass us. I don't see any reasonable
way around that obstacle.
And how long must one continue to educate themselves and at what cost? In case you haven't noticed, college isn't getting cheaper. How much do you have allocated in your life-long career-adaptation education fund? Are you able to maintain such a budget while still balancing living expenses, skyrocketing medical costs, and saving for retirement? Or are you burrowing your way to success?
Reading what egb wrote and contemplating what I wrote, I still believe that taxing an American company with factories doing the majority of the work overseas should be taxed at an astronomical rate. If indeed the American company moves its headquarters to a foreign country, wouldn't that mean it's no longer an American company? That then makes it the same as a foreign company shipping their products for U.S. consumption. At that point, you make it too expensive for the former American company to ship it's product to the U.S.
Secondly, egb might have been speaking about people in general, but there are folks, like me, with a doctorate degree who do just fine (not rich but not poor) right now. There's not a whole lot people like me could do in the event of the loss of a career. More education won't help. More than likely potential employers will see a Ph.D after my name and believe they cannot afford to hire me or keep me around if they do hire me, no matter what supplemental education I might have.
Supplemental education isn't always the answer, just like cutting taxes isn't always the answer. Remember, people still believe they should be able to go to school, learn a trade, get a degree in whatever field, hoping that they get to work in that field. We also realize it's not like the 1950's where you could work at a job for 50+ years, retire with a nice retirement package, gold watch and kudos from your employer. There must be some middle ground in there...
You're making a Tommy-esque argument with the "go to school" part. For one thing, "time" is not the only factor in going to school at night and on weekends. Money is involved too, and many people don't have the cash flow to do that. More importantly, you're talking about the individual and not the big picture. Less jobs means less openings. It's very easy to say one person should get more education, but the big picture is that millions of people will still be out of work no matter what they do. So how that qualifies as a "solution" is something of a mystery.
The fundamental assumption in your thinking is the problem with the corporate mindset. You assume labor is a burden, not a valued asset to the business. It's especially insulting given that corporate profits have soared, wealth has concentrated at the top in unprecedented form, while real wages have stagnated and cost of education has risen 29% in the last decade.
Oh how quickly they forget their Lincoln:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit
of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor
is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Sounds like one of them damn socialists.
that is such a crock. who does not value labor and hard work? liberals are the ones who want something for nothing, so for them to crow about the fruits of labor is a little silly, don't you think?
How are you able to praise charity with a clear conscience? Don't charities give "something for nothing"?
"who does not value labor and hard work?"
Someone who is constantly looking to purchase labor and hard work at an ever decreasing cost.
Sorry, jamesB, but I have NEVER asked for something without being willing to give something in return (money, services, time, whatever it is). Nice blanket statement about liberals that I just proved wrong.
Try again.
i love liberals. there is always some barrier or some excuse against someone bettering themselves, can't do it, no jobs, no time, no money, too hard, impossible. well i got news, life isn't that easy, it may be difficult, or it may be inconvenient, or it may take ingenuity and sweat or creativity, but people do it all the time against incredible odds. That is the mindset that should prevail, not oh well i give up, take somebody else's money and give it to me, easy street. there are always alternatives and people willing to help someone who has the grit and determination to improve their situation. whining about how tough it is out there is counterproductive, doing something about it builds character and pride.
That was like a whole parade of strawmen. I'm not even sure what you imagine that had to do with the post you responded to.
This liberal has a full education. This liberal has a decent paying job. This liberal has health care insurance that he shares with his partner. This liberal pays his taxes, every year, no problem. This liberal gives to charities when possible. This liberal pays for his own way through life, insofar as necessary. I don't use food stamps, I don't receive a welfare check. How is it again, that liberals make so many excuses?
Save your BS. Your blanket statements and strawmen really aren't welcome here.
strawmen? I was only repeating what others in this thread used as excuses... "For one thing, "time" is not the only factor in going to school at night and on weekends. Money is involved too, and many people don't have the cash flow to do that", and this... "And how long must one continue to educate themselves and at what cost? In case you haven't noticed, college isn't getting cheaper. How much do you have allocated in your life-long career-adaptation education fund? Are you able to maintain such a budget while still balancing living expenses, skyrocketing medical costs, and saving for retirement?" take up your BS with them.
Do you really deny that many people can't afford to go to school? What's the difference between an "excuse" and a basic understanding of reality here?
My questions were excuses??? Not being able to devote the time and expense of going college every year for the rest of your life to avoid having your shipped overseas IS AN EXCUSE???
of course you will try and rationalize your excuses, liberals always do. did you think I expected anything else? point is life is tough, and to borrow an old phrase, the tough get going. some will rise above their challenges and take care of business, others will see it's too hard and give up. I would rather encourage and honor and reward those that get going, rather than enable and excuse those that don't. maybe you don't.
James, you yourself talked about going "against incredible odds". What do you think odds are? If everyone was able to do something, then the odds of achieving it would not be incredible at all.
I was responding to the premise of having to go to school for the rest of your life to avoid being outsourced. You really think that's a viable solution for every single American?
that was your premise, egb never said go to school for the rest of your life. since I never bought your premise as it was so outlandish, I said it was an excuse.
"The solution is to not settle for an unskilled job. Always learn more. Go to school at night, on weekends, but learn new things so you can always be moving up the economic latter."
That was egb's solution for the constant threat of outsourcing, which is claiming higher and higher skilled positions as education in countries like India continues to advance and become more prevalent.
It was the solution that was outlandish, not the premise.
absolutely. and what is wrong with that? encouraging someone to do everything they can to better themselves is not some conservative political bludgeon, it's what most parents do when rearing their children, it's basic stuff. nowhere did egb say go to school for the rest of your life. that is absurd and for someone who criticizes straw arguments, that is a doozy.
"nowhere did egb say go to school for the rest of your life"
"Always learn more. Go to school at night, on weekends, but learn new things so you can always be moving up the economic latter."
I look forward to the parsing of the word "always".
You're still ignoring the threat of outsourcing highly skilled positions, which is pivotal to the issue. I can't force you to go there, so I guess we're at an impasse.
now you want to veer away from your going to school for the rest of your life argument? I can't force you to admit such a ridiculous strawman as that, so I guess we're at an impasse.
I won't admit to a strawman that is not of my making.
If you look back at the original exchange, it's plain to see that the premise was that more education was the answer to outsourcing, and in response to that my argument is... With no incentives for employers to keep positions in the US, where does it end???
What skills can we go into debt studying today that aren't going to be outsourced tomorrow??? Do you know??? Will the demand for those positions be there in sufficient abundance???
more education, yes. The point is if you are so unfortunate to have your job outsourced, which I am not so thrilled about either, then re-educating yourself to another skill for other employment is an option. I know it's not easy, work at a company all your life and then have it swiped out from under you, it has happened to a good friend of mine's father, it is horrible. but the reality is the world and the global economy we live in. and one of the byproducts of taxing corporations more in this country is an incentive for them to move elsewhere, again an unintended consequence of increasing the tax burden on companies. the point is lifting people up and preaching the rewards of hard work and perseverance, not sighing and coddling and admitting defeat. oh and by the way, anyone that would try and make the argument that "always learn more" means someone should go to school until their deathbed is the most moronic, idiotic argument I have ever heard on this or any board. I am glad you did not make that argument, you aren't that desperate.
Nobody's saying anything against the rewards of hard work and perseverance. This is the strawman you can't let go of. The point is that more education is not a practical solution to the problem. It's addressing a widespread, systemic problem by talking about something that will help a segment of those affected.
"oh and by the way, anyone that would try and make the argument that "always learn more" means someone should go to school until their deathbed is the most moronic, idiotic argument I have ever heard on this or any board."
"There are periods during life when that is not possible, but I have never met anyone who could not have found time during a 40 year career to improve skills and knowledge. It's all about priorities."
Forty years is an awfully long time. It seems to me the suggestion is that people in their sixties should still be learning in order to prevent being outsourced. If that math works out differently for you, let me know.
On a related note...
I was out of the office for the past three hours or so attending an AutoCAD customization course at my local community college. Being the lazy liberal that I am, I wanted to gain some new skills and make myself a bigger asset to my employer, who is allowing me time during the work day for the class and paying my tuition.
This was the first class of the term and the instructor informed us that the Autodesk Training Center was being cut from the school's budget and that this is the final term. So now I have to hope I can find AutoCAD instruction elsewhere. Apparently, the athletics program is more important in the eyes of the College president than providing the local economy with skilled AutoCAD users.
Get involved in the athletics program, then. If your job gets outsourced, you can join the NBA. I know it's against the odds, but it's better to demonstrate perseverance and hard work than to make excuses.
Damn lazy liberals, always the victims.
The worst part is, there are only 4 other places that offer certified Autodesk training in my local area, all of them private firms. Which means, of course, that their instruction will cost at least twice as much, and I bet it won't compare in quality.
I guess that's how the free-market "me" society is supposed to work!
oh, and there are plenty of avenues one can go do for help in paying for school if they cannot afford it, I am all for that. it takes determination and perseverance.
What are those avenues?
loans, grants, aid, scholarships, work and save. I am one conservative who is for financial aid to those who cannot afford school.
But that takes "big government."
that "big government" I am for, as long as the money gets to those who keep their grades where they should be and it's not abused. money should not hold anyone back from their education if they want it bad enough and will work for it. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into some preconceived notion of conservatism, but it is what i believe.
Preconceived notions. That's a whopper coming from you.
You should read "Nickle and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich who as an investigative journalist lived and worked in low=paying jobs and what she found was far from fantasies and fairytales of people not working hard enough. Here is something from wiki on the book..."
Written as an exposé, Ehrenreich attempts to combat the "too lazy to work" and "a job will defeat poverty" ideals held by traditionalists. Suggesting problems with the argument, Ehrenreich highlights many of the difficulties people have working jobs that pay low wages.
Foremost, she attacks the notion that low-wage jobs require "unskilled" labor. The author, a Ph.D. educated journalist, found manual labor taxing, uninteresting and degrading. She described how the work required incredible feats of stamina, focus, memory, quick thinking, and fast learning. Constant and repeated movement creates a risk of repetitive stress injury, pain must often be worked through to hold a job in a market with constant turnover; and the days are filled with degrading and uninteresting tasks (e.g. toilet-cleaning and shirt-reordering).
She argues "personality" tests, questionnaires designed to weed out "incompatible" potential employees, and urine drug tests, increasingly common in the low wage market, deter potential applicants and violate liberties while managerial apathy and austereness contribute to class separation and promote an unhealthy, stressful work environment.
She reports that "help needed" signs don't necessarily indicate an opening; more often their purpose is to sustain a pool of applicants to safeguard against rapid turnover of employees. She also argues one low wage job is often not enough to support one person (let alone a family); with inflating housing prices and stagnant wages, this practice increasingly becomes difficult to maintain. Many of the workers encountered in the book survive by living with relatives or other persons in the same position, or in their cars in parking lots.
She concludes by refuting the claim that low-wage workers, recipients of government or charitable services like welfare, food, and healthcare, are simply living off the generosity of others. Instead, she suggests, "we" live off their generosity:
When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... she has made a great sacrifice for you ... The "working poor" ... are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone. (p. 221)Right on Congero, excellent citation. Those are the kind of salt of the earth stories that need to be told, and retold, a hundred different ways if we are to reshape the way, we as a society, understand and value the labor and sacrifice of people.
We need to expose core injustices of a corporate authoritarian mentality that is antithetical to our American way of life, in which, lose morals are rewarded with grand fortunes.
The very marrow of everything we have been talking about concerning the profit driven education system, indeed the capitalization of our commons; health and education, has not been made explicit. That is to say, it is heathen to put huge price tags on the aspects of our lives that have always empowered American citizens to build a better future. But cons, in general, want to blame the individual for stagnation instead of the monied elite who systemically, once they achieve material excess, strive to maintain their station by sociopathically removing themselves from the suffering they create in their fellow human.
That is the conservative master stroke. Always divide us by blaming individual failure in a direct causal manner, instead of understanding the interconnected relationship that individual failure has with certain immoral practices of laissez-faire capitalism; like predatory lending or denial of expensive medical treatment on grounds of pre-existing conditions.
It's all about redistributing as much money to the wealthy as possible, it's all about getting something for nothing with conservative's. They are the ones who profited off of, and worked honest family men to death for no healthcare, no retirement, no vacation, no medical leave, no damn dignity until liberals busted that sinister gravy train.
Until they understand our reliance upon one another, our shared sacrifice; to He** with them and their self serving materialism.
If you do read a number of one sided books, you become somewhat
jaded and conclude entire classes of people are simply bad. Words like:
"We need to expose core injustices of a corporate authoritarian
mentality that is antithetical to our American way of life, in
which, lose morals are rewarded with grand fortunes."
are grand sweeping statements with no content. If anyone on this thread
has ever tried to start a company or run a small business (sole
proprietor) you probably understand some of the complexities of making a
go of it. These problems were present even in Soviet Russia during the
USSR period. The USSR just took the profits if they got too large.
And look where the Russian economy got to by 1990.
Everyone has an aspect of self interest. That's what keeps us alive and
why we frequently strive to improve ourselves. It's not all there is
though. I don't contribute to charity because of self interest. I
contribute based on the type of work the charity does and its
efficiency. I put what money I have to work where I think it will do the
most good.
Here's another statement I can't find any meaning or facts in:
"Always divide us by blaming individual failure in a direct causal
manner, instead of understanding the interconnected relationship
that individual failure has with certain immoral practices of
laissez-faire capitalism; like predatory lending or denial of
expensive medical treatment on grounds of pre-existing conditions."
What "immoral practices" are you talking about?
What is a predatory loan? Is the individual who signs the loan papers in
any way responsible for the loan?
Medical care is always rationed. It's just a matter of who is doing the
rationing. Today an insurance company can refuse to pay for a treatement
if it is not FDA approved. Do you blame the insurance company or the FDA
or the cure [maybe the cure is bogus]. Tomorrow when the government runs
the medical industry, it will be a committe of government people who
decide who gets what care. Economically speaking, old people will be in
grave danger. After all, that old person only has another 4 years
on average on this earth; that 20 year old has 50 to live. Which is
the better economic choice?
[opinion]
I can't wait to entrust such decisions to my
local draft board. The dangers of corruption and benefits from
political affiliation in such a society are well
known from the communist era of Russia and Eastern
Europe.
[/opinion]
Capitalism is what brought the internet into existence and why our
standard of living is higher than any other country in the world. It
ain't perfect. If you ask any "con" "Is Capitalism Perfect?" I've found
that they answer "NO", and immediately change the subject.
If you ask any "lib" they'll say "NO", the government is the
solution. Governments don't produce anything. The standard of living
would stagnate indefinitely and eventually decline if everyone worked
for the government. The government dampens economic growth. The more
government the less economic growth and economic growth translates to
improved standard of living.
[opinion]
Wage stagnation is an interesting question. I haven't seen a
credible explanation why that has happend over the past 20
years. I have my theories, but I'm looking for acts. "Credible"
would have to account for wages, employment numbers, kinds of
work and government manipulation of work rules (good or bad).
[/opinion]
There is no blaming here. There is a recognition (in my previous post)
of people who are 2-nd and 3-rd generation welfare families that think
they have a right to a house, job, car, iPod and spending money
irrespective of how they manage their lives. That is a fact. I mentioned
how you might verify it. Other than that, most people recognize there
are lots of opportunities in America.
Re: "Nickle and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich
I googled it and found it in Wikipedia. I had heard of it before and
also heard of the book:
Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.
Adam Shepard
When reading politically motivated books, I have found it always a good
idea to read more than one. If you read only one, you risk calling
yourself an expert based on Adam Shepard's book alone. Most of the time
we are hearing only one side of the story. Very seldom do I find
something to read that is non fiction and does not have globally
significant summary conclusions based on only some of the facts.
Try to read both sides of an issue.
"Unskilled" labor is just that -- unskilled. Anyone who walks in the door
can be hired irrespective of education or training. The fact that I
eventually (within days) learned how to put a bumper on a car is
irrelevant. I was unskilled. The work was not all that tedious. 4,000
other people did it for 8 hours a day and the wages are pretty good for
having zero education and zero training. People had families and retired
on automobile worker wages. The only thing that allowed such big wages
was big corporations. Had GM, Ford and Chrysler been, instead, small
companies representing all the brands within those corporations all wages
would have been lower. The large corporation gave rise to better
leverage by the unions and higher wages. That worked very well until
foreign competition showed up in force.
As far as
"She concludes by refuting the claim that low-wage
workers, recipients of government or charitable services like welfare,
food, and healthcare, are simply living off the generosity of others."
in many cases this is not true. There are 2-nd and third generation
welfare people who have a right to food stamps, housing a car and an
iPod no matter what they do with their lives - just ask them.
[Someone I am very close to dealt with some of these
people on a daily basis. This aspect of the poverty problem
cannot be ignored. The number of welfare recipients in this class
is a double digit percent of the total. Unfortunately, welfare
programs don't like statistics and there are few. However,
if anyone wants to verify or even learn about the spectrum
of problems in welfare America, just volunteer to help social
workers in the field. Mileage will vary from state to state and
even county to county, but you will have your eyes opened.]
Many "welfare" programs actually produce good undocumented results. The
problems with them, though, is that no one hears about them because if
information about one program is made available, it might cause people
to ask about other programs. Fear of cancelation of funding for programs
means no information is collected or published. Remember, no government
program that hires workers will ever voluntarily disolve itself, no
matter how ineffective it is. Further, the political party that voted it
into existence permanently buys the votes of the employees of the
government run programs. Would you vote for someone who advocates the
removal of a program that is your principle employment?
If I had one wish for government it would be for open government. It
would be "NO PROGRAM LEFT BEHIND". All programs would have to demonstrate
how they spend each dollar and convince the public that they have
delivered significant results versus not having the program at all.
No government program does this as far as I know.
I am curious, though, how it is that you can throw the American worker under the bus defending this bullhockey about jobs going overseas. The American worker is more important than your fatcat CEOs.
Without the workers, your CEO's have NOTHING.
I love conservatives. There is always some barrier or some excuse against someone getting filthy stinking rich, can’t do it, taxes are too high, I can’t profit unless I pollute our air, poison our water, and exploit already impoverished people. Well I got news, running successful business that doesn’t exploit people and doesn’t destroy our environment isn’t that easy, it my be difficult, you may have to settle for a Gulfstream IV instead of a Gulfstream V, but people do it all the time against incredible odds. That is the mindset that should prevail, not oh well I give up, in order for me to win, thousands of others have to lose, the air has to be dirty, the water has to be poisoned, impoverished people have to remain impoverished and I can’t pay my fair share in taxes, easy street. Whining about how tough it is out there to compete without exploiting workers, dodging taxes and destroying our planet is counterproductive, doing something about it builds character and pride.
nah, no strawmen there? just typical liberal class warfare nonsense.
I really don't know how to respond to such a long diatribe of nonsense other than with an equally long diatribe of nonsense.
pete592 offered a perfect parody of your parody of reality and that's the best reply you can produce?
Wow. Just wow.
really? I only repeated the excuses others used on this very thread, perhaps you should go back and read it before you wow anything. I don't recall reading where a conservative posted they want dirty air and water and Gulfstream jets, but you don't wow pete putting that baloney in his response. wow, just wow.
Seriously? As if corporations haven't been fighting environmental regulations for years?
By the way, the concepts of people trying to get ahead and all people not being able to do so are not mutually exclusive. Pointing out that re-education is not a widespread "solution" doesn't say anything about people not making an effort to succeed.
That's why your argument is a strawman.
"I only repeated the excuses others used on this very thread"
And it's these "excuses" in this forum by which you judge all liberals as people who sit around, make excuses and "take somebody else's money."
I don't recall reading where a liberal posted that they want to "take somebody else's money and give it to me."
Ask any of the liberals posting here what they do for a living and I doubt it would involve "taking somebody else's money."
Your post was nothing more than an absolute joke full of rash generalization, insult, and false premise. Therefore, you got one in return.
It lies about the reasons this is happening.
YOUR comments are bogus.
Our tax rate is lower than China where the jobs are heading. Fox will have endless reasons why corporate bosses need another break.
Conservatives don't understand that tax brackets are but one page in a tax code with thousands of pages.
I believe that same GAO Report states that approximately 50% of American corporations pay no Federal income taxes. So if half the corporations pay the statutory 40% (and they don't) and half pay $0 the effective average rate would be 20%. But it's lower than that.
Gov. Palin up in Alaska pushed through a windfall profits tax on oil companies. They pay this to the State (that then shares the wealth in a socialistic manner by distributing the proceeds to its citizens). The companies then take this as a legitimate deduction on their taxes - reducing their Federal income tax and letting those of us in the remaining 49 states share the burden. Without receiving any of the proceeds from the State of Alaska tax, of course.
boy those boys just can't stop lying over at fixed noise can they
When you pay your PERSONAL income taxes, what matters at the end - your marginal statutory rate, or the actual amount you pay? Always the latter. When statutory marginal rates were up to 90% in the U.S., the Federal government actually made up LESS of the economy as a % of GDP than it does now...ditto for when the top marginal rate was 70%, etc. This is because there was an endless list of things you used to able to deduct...can you imagine? We used to be able to deduct ALL interest, not just mortgage interest! Etc.
Not to worry. As soon as cap and trade is passed we will far exceed any actual or "effective" tax rates of anywhere in the known universe. We will be asking companies to please move overseas. The United States wants to share its wealth with other countries.
That plus the grabbing of tax benefits for US companies with overseas locations, I see no reason why most companies shouldn't just move their headquarters overseas also. Eventually, we'll be a nation of import stores. Imagine Detroit, Kalamazoo and Eaton Rapids all having branches of the International Independent Anything import stores where almost all goods are brought to be sold from foreign nations. The transportation and communications industries will be solid, though.
"We will be asking companies to please move overseas."
Will be??? Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton already beat us to it. The giant sucking sound has been blaring for years. And you think cap and trade will be the genesis of outsourcing???
What a "can't do" attitude you guys have. Rather than LEAD THE WAY in technology to fight climate change, you already assume we can't do it and that the other countries win. This is typical con nonsense. By inveting the necessary solution in THIS coutnry, we will have opportunities to sell it to other countries, more and more of whom will need it as they sign onto Kyoto (as we should) and future treaties. Why are you con's such whiny little quitters?
It's astounding, isn't it? In one breath, egb is telling us that we should educate ourselves and get the skills necessary to work through American jobs going overseas.
In the next breath, he's telling us that we should just resign ourselves to consumption of imported goods from foreign factories owned by American companies. Nice.
So, what's all of this education for, egb? You guys on the right sure don't want us to do anything about fuel-efficient cars (because it would KILL your oil profits, wouldn't it?). You sure don't want us to study climate change and come up with a solution to that, because, you know, it's not real. Whatever.
Sorry about the formatting it did not look that way when I posted it.