Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
I'm not saying I believe in everything Jones says, I just saw that video and I'm asking whether or not Obama supported removing the exemption of American citizens from the NDAA.
It came up when everyone was freaking out about it a few months ago and the sources were from some Senator who then admitted he was lying about it. It was really, really dumb.
I'm not saying I believe in everything Jones says, I just saw that video and I'm asking whether or not Obama supported removing the exemption of American citizens from the NDAA.
It came up when everyone was freaking out about it a few months ago and the sources were from some Senator who then admitted he was lying about it. It was really, really dumb.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
I'd say it depends on the corporation and how good their tax lawyers are. I'm sure they're are few that could in theory end up paying less if he botches this rewrite. I think the key thing is to make sure that the GOP swine can't amend this in a way that would force him to veto it without making them look like the scum that they are.
Thinking on this, this is is pretty slick. If the GOP lets this slide without any tinkering, he comes out fairly strong and they'll look fairly weak. If they fight this, which is likely given the track record of these clowns, it might be fairly easy to force them to paint themselves into a corner.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
Sure. GE, for example, could always get more of a refund back than they already do.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
I'd say it depends on the corporation and how good their tax lawyers are. I'm sure they're are few that could in theory end up paying less if he botches this rewrite. I think the key thing is to make sure that the GOP swine can't amend this in a way that would force him to veto it without making them look like the scum that they are.
Thinking on this, this is is pretty slick. If the GOP lets this slide without any tinkering, he comes out fairly strong and they'll look fairly weak. If they fight this, which is likely given the track record of these clowns, it might be fairly easy to force them to paint themselves into a corner.
There are companies that pay 0% (or get refunds) and there are companies that pay the full 35%. This is a problem since similarly situated tax payers are bearin very different tax burdens. The question is really what they will decide is a "loophole." As I explained in the tax simplification thread, some of the highest profile "loopholes" like like-kind exchanges actually serve critically important rules. My honest opinion is that the best way to reform is broad antiabuse provisions. The more words you use to try and eliminate abuse, the more opportunities you have given for avoidance of taxes due to complex and unintended interactions between those words and provisions. For my money, the best anti-avoidance measures are facts and circumstances tests for determining if a transaction is abusive. This lets you preserve the spirit of the law, instead of being beholden to the word of it.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
If he actually succeeds at removing any loop holes (for instance: the language of the bill is just "EVERY corporation pays 28% tax rate PERIOD") then they would end up paying much, much more.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
I'd say it depends on the corporation and how good their tax lawyers are. I'm sure they're are few that could in theory end up paying less if he botches this rewrite. I think the key thing is to make sure that the GOP swine can't amend this in a way that would force him to veto it without making them look like the scum that they are.
Thinking on this, this is is pretty slick. If the GOP lets this slide without any tinkering, he comes out fairly strong and they'll look fairly weak. If they fight this, which is likely given the track record of these clowns, it might be fairly easy to force them to paint themselves into a corner.
Might? I don't see how they could possibly NOT get themselves into a corner.
All Obama has to say is: "I'm trying to reduce taxes on those that make the most, that create the jobs, which is exactly what my colleagues want. Why are they fighting me on this point?"
It was shoved through so quickly it took over 6 months to pass, went through multiple congressional subcommittees, got scored by the CBO no less than 4 times
shoved right down our throats with no time to even READ THE BILL
This is only because of the way the US structures medical education - it is intentionally fucked up to the point where it is only worth it because of the fact that you qualify for huge salaries if you make it (that is if the massive debt doesn't swallow you beforehand). Meanwhile in other developed countries they actually treat medical students like professionals-in-training rather than attempting to shit on them in virtual hazing whenever the opportunity presents itself. Also pharmaceutical corporations benefit greatly from the research and work conducted by universities before trying to turn drugs for a profit.
Just because the profit motive has been institutionalized does not mean that medicine has always been driven by a profit motive or requires one in order to succeed - i think this has been discussed before in a different thread.
It's not just the money. Becoming a doctor takes years longer in the U.S. than it does anywhere else. A lot of American physician assistants complain because they actually have to go to school longer than the foreign-trained doctors they serve under.
There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.
Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.
Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.
As a third year medical student, I can tell you that one of the things contributing to the shortage of primary care providers is the fact that it costs so damn much to become a doctor that people on their way out of med school will skew toward specialties that will eventually net them higher pay. When you are carrying 300 grand in debt between college and med school, are 25-26 or older and have 3 or 5 or 7 years of earing ~50k a year for ridiculous hours to look forward to before really getting started, it is hard to justify pediatrics or family medicine or whathaveyou unless you just can't see yourself doing something else.
Having tangented a bit, I'm actually replying to tell you that the AMA and medical schools aren't artifically limiting diddly squat. They are providing natural limits: the number of doctors being trained in the US (well, MDs anyway. DO's make up the remainder) by accredited, trustworthy institutions. And the limits are going up! More medical schools are opening all the time. And this is a Bad Thing. A Bad Thing that I'd like to see the prez take a shot at fixing, with some fancy rhetoric and a winning smile.
It is a bad thing because what actually limits the number of new doctors able to practice is the number of residency positions available, which are federally funded and can't just be magic'd up for the hell of it. With lots of new medical schools opening, though, we have increased applicants for a finite number of spots. It's working out fine for domestic grads now, but ultimately rather than producing more doctors, it is just producing the same number but edging out foreign grads (and ultimately American non-domestic grads). The end result, if more residency funding doesn't appear, will be heavily debt-laden medical school grads unable to finish their training and practice.
Which sucks.
Long story short, since Congress is inept, I'd really appreciate President Obama converting me into his personal high five dispensing machine by pulling some of his machiavellian political chicanery to un-screw this sitch. It wouldn't fix maldistribution of health care professionals, which is its own problem for its own thread, but it'd please anyone concerned with underproduction.
So having a greater % of practicing doctors here actually being trained in the U.S. and *gasp* U.S. citizens is a bad thing?
It was shoved through so quickly it took over 6 months to pass, went through multiple congressional subcommittees, got scored by the CBO no less than 4 times
shoved right down our throats with no time to even READ THE BILL
This is only because of the way the US structures medical education - it is intentionally fucked up to the point where it is only worth it because of the fact that you qualify for huge salaries if you make it (that is if the massive debt doesn't swallow you beforehand). Meanwhile in other developed countries they actually treat medical students like professionals-in-training rather than attempting to shit on them in virtual hazing whenever the opportunity presents itself. Also pharmaceutical corporations benefit greatly from the research and work conducted by universities before trying to turn drugs for a profit.
Just because the profit motive has been institutionalized does not mean that medicine has always been driven by a profit motive or requires one in order to succeed - i think this has been discussed before in a different thread.
It's not just the money. Becoming a doctor takes years longer in the U.S. than it does anywhere else. A lot of American physician assistants complain because they actually have to go to school longer than the foreign-trained doctors they serve under.
There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.
Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.
Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.
As a third year medical student, I can tell you that one of the things contributing to the shortage of primary care providers is the fact that it costs so damn much to become a doctor that people on their way out of med school will skew toward specialties that will eventually net them higher pay. When you are carrying 300 grand in debt between college and med school, are 25-26 or older and have 3 or 5 or 7 years of earing ~50k a year for ridiculous hours to look forward to before really getting started, it is hard to justify pediatrics or family medicine or whathaveyou unless you just can't see yourself doing something else.
Having tangented a bit, I'm actually replying to tell you that the AMA and medical schools aren't artifically limiting diddly squat. They are providing natural limits: the number of doctors being trained in the US (well, MDs anyway. DO's make up the remainder) by accredited, trustworthy institutions. And the limits are going up! More medical schools are opening all the time. And this is a Bad Thing. A Bad Thing that I'd like to see the prez take a shot at fixing, with some fancy rhetoric and a winning smile.
It is a bad thing because what actually limits the number of new doctors able to practice is the number of residency positions available, which are federally funded and can't just be magic'd up for the hell of it. With lots of new medical schools opening, though, we have increased applicants for a finite number of spots. It's working out fine for domestic grads now, but ultimately rather than producing more doctors, it is just producing the same number but edging out foreign grads (and ultimately American non-domestic grads). The end result, if more residency funding doesn't appear, will be heavily debt-laden medical school grads unable to finish their training and practice.
Which sucks.
Long story short, since Congress is inept, I'd really appreciate President Obama converting me into his personal high five dispensing machine by pulling some of his machiavellian political chicanery to un-screw this sitch. It wouldn't fix maldistribution of health care professionals, which is its own problem for its own thread, but it'd please anyone concerned with underproduction.
So having a greater % of practicing doctors here actually being trained in the U.S. and *gasp* U.S. citizens is a bad thing?
I'm not following.
40 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors
50 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors + 10 Heavily indebted med students that can't get work as doctors
Your not actually adding new doctors unless you find more or new ways to train med students.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
It was shoved through so quickly it took over 6 months to pass, went through multiple congressional subcommittees, got scored by the CBO no less than 4 times
shoved right down our throats with no time to even READ THE BILL
This is only because of the way the US structures medical education - it is intentionally fucked up to the point where it is only worth it because of the fact that you qualify for huge salaries if you make it (that is if the massive debt doesn't swallow you beforehand). Meanwhile in other developed countries they actually treat medical students like professionals-in-training rather than attempting to shit on them in virtual hazing whenever the opportunity presents itself. Also pharmaceutical corporations benefit greatly from the research and work conducted by universities before trying to turn drugs for a profit.
Just because the profit motive has been institutionalized does not mean that medicine has always been driven by a profit motive or requires one in order to succeed - i think this has been discussed before in a different thread.
It's not just the money. Becoming a doctor takes years longer in the U.S. than it does anywhere else. A lot of American physician assistants complain because they actually have to go to school longer than the foreign-trained doctors they serve under.
There's also the fact that the American Medical Association and medical schools artificially limit the number of American-trained doctors, creating artificial scarcity and a market for those foreign doctors.
Our medical system is fucked up from top to bottom. The reason in almost every case is the profit motive.
Elsewhere being a doctor is a good position in a noble profession. Here it's a cash grab you get for enduring a decade of hell.
As a third year medical student, I can tell you that one of the things contributing to the shortage of primary care providers is the fact that it costs so damn much to become a doctor that people on their way out of med school will skew toward specialties that will eventually net them higher pay. When you are carrying 300 grand in debt between college and med school, are 25-26 or older and have 3 or 5 or 7 years of earing ~50k a year for ridiculous hours to look forward to before really getting started, it is hard to justify pediatrics or family medicine or whathaveyou unless you just can't see yourself doing something else.
Having tangented a bit, I'm actually replying to tell you that the AMA and medical schools aren't artifically limiting diddly squat. They are providing natural limits: the number of doctors being trained in the US (well, MDs anyway. DO's make up the remainder) by accredited, trustworthy institutions. And the limits are going up! More medical schools are opening all the time. And this is a Bad Thing. A Bad Thing that I'd like to see the prez take a shot at fixing, with some fancy rhetoric and a winning smile.
It is a bad thing because what actually limits the number of new doctors able to practice is the number of residency positions available, which are federally funded and can't just be magic'd up for the hell of it. With lots of new medical schools opening, though, we have increased applicants for a finite number of spots. It's working out fine for domestic grads now, but ultimately rather than producing more doctors, it is just producing the same number but edging out foreign grads (and ultimately American non-domestic grads). The end result, if more residency funding doesn't appear, will be heavily debt-laden medical school grads unable to finish their training and practice.
Which sucks.
Long story short, since Congress is inept, I'd really appreciate President Obama converting me into his personal high five dispensing machine by pulling some of his machiavellian political chicanery to un-screw this sitch. It wouldn't fix maldistribution of health care professionals, which is its own problem for its own thread, but it'd please anyone concerned with underproduction.
So having a greater % of practicing doctors here actually being trained in the U.S. and *gasp* U.S. citizens is a bad thing?
I'm not following.
40 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors
50 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors + 10 Heavily indebted med students that can't get work as doctors
Your not actually adding new doctors unless you find more or new ways to train med students.
You need to provide incentive for people to become GPs as well as teachers. Even if you found the right combination of financial incentives which would have to involve some level of debt repayment assistance and money to start up a practice, it would take 14+ years for any of it to have an effect. Medical Doctors (and specialists doubly so) isn't something you can make better by some sort of retraining program. Being a doctor fucking sucks unless it's what you've always wanted to do, the prestige isn't there, the money isn't there, but all the hours and more paperwork and bullshit has only gotten worse.
Then the solution is to fund more residence programs, or more funding to the existing ones. Greater medical school capacity is still not sounding like a bad thing, merely half of the solution rather than the solution in itself.
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
I'd say it depends on the corporation and how good their tax lawyers are. I'm sure they're are few that could in theory end up paying less if he botches this rewrite. I think the key thing is to make sure that the GOP swine can't amend this in a way that would force him to veto it without making them look like the scum that they are.
Thinking on this, this is is pretty slick. If the GOP lets this slide without any tinkering, he comes out fairly strong and they'll look fairly weak. If they fight this, which is likely given the track record of these clowns, it might be fairly easy to force them to paint themselves into a corner.
Might? I don't see how they could possibly NOT get themselves into a corner.
All Obama has to say is: "I'm trying to reduce taxes on those that make the most, that create the jobs, which is exactly what my colleagues want. Why are they fighting me on this point?"
GOP will just say "well it's not 0%, so communism" or something.
There are companies that pay 0% (or get refunds) and there are companies that pay the full 35%. This is a problem since similarly situated tax payers are bearin very different tax burdens. The question is really what they will decide is a "loophole." As I explained in the tax simplification thread, some of the highest profile "loopholes" like like-kind exchanges actually serve critically important rules. My honest opinion is that the best way to reform is broad antiabuse provisions. The more words you use to try and eliminate abuse, the more opportunities you have given for avoidance of taxes due to complex and unintended interactions between those words and provisions. For my money, the best anti-avoidance measures are facts and circumstances tests for determining if a transaction is abusive. This lets you preserve the spirit of the law, instead of being beholden to the word of it.
The FT (world's best financial paper IMHO) article on this immediately brought to mind our discussion in the tax thread. Once again, I know exactly at what part of the corporate tax code I'd want to take aim. Here's hoping that Obama shares my perspective.
US profits on overseas earnings are taxed at a rate of 35 per cent, one of the highest rates in the developed world. The money is only subject to tax when it is brought back to the US, however, due to a provision of US tax policy known as “deferral”.
Personally, I think the best way to fix the tax problem is a very small tax on corporate revenue.
And yeah, that hurts when you have a bad year, but it solves the problem of stuff like the Double Irish. And corporations have lost the right to bitch about it, because of running things like the Double Irish.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Google it. It's a tax shelter that involves two Irish corporate entities, one headquartered in an offshore financial center (OFC aka tax shelter) and one headquartered in Ireland. The structure allows income to pass through from the Irish-headquartered entity (which actually has operations and is generating income from non-US sources) to the OFC-headquartered entity (which is essentially a shell). The ultimate result is that the Irish-headquartered entity shows no profits (it's paying royalties equal to its net income to the OFC-headquartered entity) and pays no taxes to Ireland, while the money is funneled through to the OFC and no profit is recognized in the US, even though both entities are wholly-owned subsidiaries of a US company.
Like I said if he pulls this off it'll be brilliant, but only if he pulls it off. The impression I get is that the tax code is fairly easy to exploit for those who have the money to hire the know how to do and he has to make sure that this will in no way reduce the US's tax revenue because their is always the chance that the republicans will roll over on this one. At the same time he has to make sure that he keeps the upper hand and prevent the GOP from finding a way to turn this to their advantage. The one thing he has going for him is that he doesn't need this to pass, if the house won't give him something workable he can let it die with the help of congressional democrats.
I like the idea of having US companies pay the difference between what they pay in taxes on foreign profit to foreign governments, and the US corporate tax rate.
Also, the "rate" is currently pretty high, and it should be reduced and simplified, with tax breaks limited to things like manufacturing and clean energy development etc.
This is part of a larger argument: I don't see why corporations should reap the benefit of globalization while the average American worker holds the bag, taking the brunt of the negative consequences.
I think it'd be hilarious to see Obama propose that everyone making less than half a mil pays no taxes while everyone making over half a mil pays 50% of their income, capitol gains, etc. in taxes. It's be great to see the Republicans take away a 0% tax on regular people.
The USA are heading quickly towards an Plutocracy, I blame Obama not doing anything against it. (Well, he hasn't the power to do anything)
The major problem to me is the US-party funding system, not only the taxes.
Not related: Russia haas a bette GINI index than the USA...
The term "Russian oligarch" should be renamed into "American oligarch" ?
Well, he did have the power to make change in the wake of the financial crisis (at least on banking, a huge contributor to overall income inequality), but the fact that he didn't do anything isn't quite as much his fault as it was Larry Summers and Tim Geithner's. And Rahm Emanuel's. And Ben Bernanke's. And congress too I guess since Dodd-Frank was garbage. Huh. Point well made.
I think it'd be hilarious to see Obama propose that everyone making less than half a mil pays no taxes while everyone making over half a mil pays 50% of their income, capitol gains, etc. in taxes. It's be great to see the Republicans take away a 0% tax on regular people.
"Massive tax hike on job creators" "open class warfare" "unprecedented attack on the American people"
Something I'm wondering about, for the med students: the tax law today says that you can't deduct student loan interest if you make more than a certain amount of money. That law doesn't take into account the amount of interest you are paying, or the cost of living for where you live. I really think that tax code needs revision.
So if you're a doctor and all the sudden you're making $200k, you can't deduct the interest despite being $300k in debt at 5% or whatever.
I don't know how common it is for a doctor to "suddenly" be making 200k. Even if it does happen, that is not a very high priority for tax reformation. After loan payments/mortgage/whatever else, I doubt you will be struggling to make ends meet on that kind of money.
But there are still issues with the cost of college these days. Something that's been tossed around is setting up loans so that the student only pays some very small fixed percentage of his income back every year for 20 years or more.
You don't have to tell me. I came out with 130k in debt, and only about 30k was at a low (4.8% fixed) rate via government loan. The rest was a variable loan from a bank, and for awhile it was north of 9%. Of course, job prospects were actually good when I graduated, and I lived like a broke college student out of my parents basement until I got married so that I could pay it down quickly. Over half my salary was going to loan repayment during that period.
So I could definitely get behind smaller, fixed percentage loans for any secondary education (not just college). I just don't think making interest on student loans deductible is a big priority when the intended recipients are making as much as 200k a year.
I don't know how common it is for a doctor to "suddenly" be making 200k. Even if it does happen, that is not a very high priority for tax reformation. After loan payments/mortgage/whatever else, I doubt you will be struggling to make ends meet on that kind of money.
Yeah, I've known doctors who had been practicing for 20 years that still had student loan payments.
Every part of the process in the American healthcare system is broken.
Posts
(emphasis added)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
It came up when everyone was freaking out about it a few months ago and the sources were from some Senator who then admitted he was lying about it. It was really, really dumb.
Was it Rand Paul?
That's only true if you're not insane, though.
But without my lizard clock, how will I know when it's quarter to Lizard?
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a little worried that when all is said and done the corporations will be paying even less than they do now overall. On the other hand this may result in them paying more and if he succeeds in setting this up so that they want to move business back to the states. That also has the side benefit of getting more people employed, thus more people who pay taxes and don't need certain government support programs.
It could also be politically brilliant if this doesn't reduce tax income below what the US already gets now. Sure the GOP candidates are pushing for bigger cuts but the math so far for all their tax plans has shown that the deficit would only increase.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The President sings again! this time with backup!
backup like Bb King, Mick jagger, and others.
Have I mentioned how awesome this president is?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Is it actually possible for them to pay less than they do now?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'd say it depends on the corporation and how good their tax lawyers are. I'm sure they're are few that could in theory end up paying less if he botches this rewrite. I think the key thing is to make sure that the GOP swine can't amend this in a way that would force him to veto it without making them look like the scum that they are.
Thinking on this, this is is pretty slick. If the GOP lets this slide without any tinkering, he comes out fairly strong and they'll look fairly weak. If they fight this, which is likely given the track record of these clowns, it might be fairly easy to force them to paint themselves into a corner.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Sure. GE, for example, could always get more of a refund back than they already do.
There are companies that pay 0% (or get refunds) and there are companies that pay the full 35%. This is a problem since similarly situated tax payers are bearin very different tax burdens. The question is really what they will decide is a "loophole." As I explained in the tax simplification thread, some of the highest profile "loopholes" like like-kind exchanges actually serve critically important rules. My honest opinion is that the best way to reform is broad antiabuse provisions. The more words you use to try and eliminate abuse, the more opportunities you have given for avoidance of taxes due to complex and unintended interactions between those words and provisions. For my money, the best anti-avoidance measures are facts and circumstances tests for determining if a transaction is abusive. This lets you preserve the spirit of the law, instead of being beholden to the word of it.
If he actually succeeds at removing any loop holes (for instance: the language of the bill is just "EVERY corporation pays 28% tax rate PERIOD") then they would end up paying much, much more.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Might? I don't see how they could possibly NOT get themselves into a corner.
All Obama has to say is: "I'm trying to reduce taxes on those that make the most, that create the jobs, which is exactly what my colleagues want. Why are they fighting me on this point?"
So having a greater % of practicing doctors here actually being trained in the U.S. and *gasp* U.S. citizens is a bad thing?
I'm not following.
40 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors
50 med students + 40 internship positions = 40 doctors + 10 Heavily indebted med students that can't get work as doctors
Your not actually adding new doctors unless you find more or new ways to train med students.
Thus, that's not the problem that needs addressing.
You need to provide incentive for people to become GPs as well as teachers. Even if you found the right combination of financial incentives which would have to involve some level of debt repayment assistance and money to start up a practice, it would take 14+ years for any of it to have an effect. Medical Doctors (and specialists doubly so) isn't something you can make better by some sort of retraining program. Being a doctor fucking sucks unless it's what you've always wanted to do, the prestige isn't there, the money isn't there, but all the hours and more paperwork and bullshit has only gotten worse.
GOP will just say "well it's not 0%, so communism" or something.
The FT (world's best financial paper IMHO) article on this immediately brought to mind our discussion in the tax thread. Once again, I know exactly at what part of the corporate tax code I'd want to take aim. Here's hoping that Obama shares my perspective.
And yeah, that hurts when you have a bad year, but it solves the problem of stuff like the Double Irish. And corporations have lost the right to bitch about it, because of running things like the Double Irish.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Conan O'Brien and Dennis Leary in a coat room with one condom?
Seriously though, what's the double irish?
edited for clarity
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Also, the "rate" is currently pretty high, and it should be reduced and simplified, with tax breaks limited to things like manufacturing and clean energy development etc.
This is part of a larger argument: I don't see why corporations should reap the benefit of globalization while the average American worker holds the bag, taking the brunt of the negative consequences.
The major problem to me is the US-party funding system, not only the taxes.
Not related: Russia has a better GINI index than the USA...
The term "Russian oligarch" should be renamed into "American oligarch" ?
Well, he did have the power to make change in the wake of the financial crisis (at least on banking, a huge contributor to overall income inequality), but the fact that he didn't do anything isn't quite as much his fault as it was Larry Summers and Tim Geithner's. And Rahm Emanuel's. And Ben Bernanke's. And congress too I guess since Dodd-Frank was garbage. Huh. Point well made.
Haha "heading" he says... "toward" he says...
So if you're a doctor and all the sudden you're making $200k, you can't deduct the interest despite being $300k in debt at 5% or whatever.
So I could definitely get behind smaller, fixed percentage loans for any secondary education (not just college). I just don't think making interest on student loans deductible is a big priority when the intended recipients are making as much as 200k a year.
Yeah, I've known doctors who had been practicing for 20 years that still had student loan payments.
Every part of the process in the American healthcare system is broken.
You don't need to go to school for ten years and then do an internship/residency to be able to look at my ear and say "this is an ear infection."