Dems Put GOP On Spot Over Tax Benefits For The Super-Rich

Soulshiner wrote: Tens of thousands of jobs in the yacht building industry?

Apparently so.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html

PrintSmith wrote: If you want an idea, you could look to the Clinton era "luxury tax" that was levied and see the results. Tens of thousands of jobs lost for craftsmen who built and customized yachts, a 20% decline in the number of luxury cars sold; and let us not forget to mention a substantially less amount of tax revenue actually received than projected when the tax was levied.

Why do you say 'Clinton era "luxury tax" '?

It was passed under George Bush the first.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102899.asp

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was the budget agreement by which President Bush broke his "read-my-lips" vow not to agree to new taxes. The act was, as omnibus bills tend to be, an eye-of-newt-and-hair-of-toad brew of this and that and some other things, and it included--in the name of fairness, of course--a stern tax on "luxury items."

Those items included automobiles, aircraft, jewelry and furs over certain prices. And yachts costing more than $100,000.

In 1990 there were no luxury excise taxes, all of them having been repealed in 1965. But perhaps every quarter-century or so government--it cannot help itself--must go on a "fairness" bender, the memory of the hangover from similar misadventures having faded.

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

And I already anticipate you saying it was under the pressure a Democrat congress. But guess what, Bush even vetoed its repeal, and it was Clinton who said he'd repeal it.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-11-06/business/9202280044_1_luxury-tax-excise-tax-marine-industry

And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

A 10% luxury tax on all luxury items purchased is nothing even close to what Obama proposed. You guys just got off on the word "yacht" and rememberd what happened 20 years ago (with faulty memory).

And it's not that I support what Obama said, he was playing politics as I posted earlier in this thread.

What he said wasn't specific, just that yacht owners might not get a mortage deduction on their taxes. How does that compare with a 10% tax on every yacht (or other luxury item) sold? It doesn't.

As I mentioned before, yacht owners, or house boat owners should get a mortgage deduction under our present tax system if that is their primary home. If not the primary home, I don't support the deduction. And maybe all deductions should be eliminated if tax rates are also reduced.

Anyway, my main point is Clinton didn't create the yacht luxury tax but rather repealed it, and taking away a deduction for mortgage interest on one person's yacht, not that it will happen, has nothing to do with a 10% excise tax on the sell of all yachts and other luxury items.

pineinthegrass wrote: And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

You do realize that your credibility just went down a lot?

The Viking wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

You do realize that your credibility just went down a lot?

Not if you spent 10 minutes of your time to read my post and the two links I provided. But I know it's late... lol

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Viking wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

You do realize that your credibility just went down a lot?

Not if you spent 10 minutes of your time to read my post and the two links I provided. But I know it's late... lol

Just giving you a hard time. But I did read the post, just not the links yet.

The Viking wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Viking wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

You do realize that your credibility just went down a lot?

Not if you spent 10 minutes of your time to read my post and the two links I provided. But I know it's late... lol

Just giving you a hard time. But I did read the post, just not the links yet.

No problem. And the first link, though from and obscure source, is from conservative George Will. I could of picked other sources too, but it's George Will.

pineinthegrass wrote: And here I have to agree with LJ (choke). It's apples to oranges anyway.

A 10% luxury tax on all luxury items purchased is nothing even close to what Obama proposed. You guys just got off on the word "yacht" and mis-remembered what happened 20 years ago (with faulty memory).

Exactly... They remembered the word "yacht" and we're off and running... The proposal isn't anything like that..and it's a apples-to-oranges scenario. But hey, if can throw enough stuff on the wall, maybe some will stick? Not this time.

And yet... One of the biggest evil corperations...


Drew Angerer/The New York Times
A PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS LIAISONIn January, President Obama named Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric's chief executive, to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. "He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy," Mr. Obama said.


But Nobody Pays That
G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
General Electric: Where Taxes Are a Source of Profits
General Electric Co.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1

Should we also ask WHY G.E. was the only American company is (stopped in 2008, because of so much pressure, so they say)/was allowed to do business with IRAN?

"There have been two exceptions to this: completing the work for existing contracts as quickly as possible and humanitarian activity, which is authorized by U.S. Government licenses. As of June 2008, we have completed all business in Iran. GE at all times acted in full compliance with U.S. and other laws. We have always required our businesses to follow U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws. In fact, our policies have been more restrictive than U.S. law."
http://www.ge.com/news/our_viewpoints/iran.html