Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The stimulus, the baby of the great orator, is what created the tax breaks that the orator screamed about in the debt ceiling debates to begin with. He's nothing but a liar and crook.
Wrong. It was the result of changes made to the tax code in 1981 and 1986.
Do you understand the difference between tax breaks to corporations that buy corporate jets, and financing for jet manufactures to export corporate jets?
You don't?
Okay, that's why.
Yes, but you don't. Depreciation over five or seven years has no net effect on total tax liability. Five year depreciation simply accelerates the expense, lowering the taxable income which results in a temporary timing difference. The net tax collected by the government is the same - just a two year difference.
Subsidies, on the other hand, are pure graft. They cost the government real money, because they effectively result in permanent differences.
Obama's promise of $1 billion cost the taxpayer $1 billion. Accelerating depreciation cost the government zero - its only the timing of the payments.
So to summarize, he criticized the airline industry for a timing difference that cost the taxpayer zero but offers up a billion of taxpayer money to buy some votes and you're happy about it....
Yes, but you don't. Depreciation over five or seven years has no net effect on total tax liability. Five year depreciation simply accelerates the expense, lowering the taxable income which results in a temporary timing difference. The net tax collected by the government is the same - just a two year difference.
Net tax collected is never the same. The "timing differences' are not merely delays but the opportunity to reduce overall effective tax rates in the years in which higher depreciation is taken and sheltering income from higher tax rates that can never be recovered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Subsidies, on the other hand, are pure graft. They cost the government real money, because they effectively result in permanent differences.
Alas... not all subsidies are created equal, and financing of the sort offered by the Import-Export bank is hardly "pure graft." As financing it is subject to repayment, unlike direct farm subsidies (for example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Obama's promise of $1 billion cost the taxpayer $1 billion. Accelerating depreciation cost the government zero - its only the timing of the payments.
The mission of the Export-Import Bank is to facilitate loans for American-made products which are sold overseas. They do not compete with private lenders, but either loan directly or assume the risk of loans which foreign entities cannot, or will not, finance themselves. It's mission is this:
Mission
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets.
Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies — large and small — to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy.
Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders but provides export financing products that fill gaps in trade financing. We assume credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept. We also help to level the playing field for U.S. exporters by matching the financing that other governments provide to their exporters.
Ex-Im Bank provides working capital guarantees (pre-export financing); export credit insurance; and loan guarantees and direct loans (buyer financing). No transaction is too large or too small. On average, 85% of our transactions directly benefit U.S. small businesses.
They are REQUIRED by their Congressional Charter to do this. The charter is renewed every 6 years, with the most recent being this week. The loan guarantees to support overseas sales by American aircraft manufacturers were made under the Charter issued by the Democratic Congress and signed into law in 2006 by President Bush.
Blaming the President for it is a bit more than just a stretch as the Bank is REQUIRED BY LAW to such things. If Obama can be blamed for the loans, Bush can be equally blamed for allowing them in the first place.
Note to some posters: Just because you can somehow link Obama's name to something does not necessarily mean he is guilty.
Wrong. It was the result of changes made to the tax code in 1981 and 1986.
More BS from a swooner..............
"Demagoguery was redefined at Wednesday's news conference, when President Obama mentioned corporate jets and their owners no fewer than six times as an example of how the rich should pay more taxes, lest necessary things such as food safety face a budget ax.
"I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no one else enjoys," the president stated to an oblivious White House press corps. The "NBC Nightly News" dutifully repeated the charge twice in its coverage. For media obsessed with gaffes by GOP candidates, real and imagined, the hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
As Rob Bluey of the Heritage Foundation points out, the so-called loophole — the incentive — first used to help plane-makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks, was included as part of the president's own stimulus package, designed to save or create jobs in the aircraft manufacturing industry."
Do you understand the difference between tax breaks to corporations that buy corporate jets, and financing for jet manufactures to export corporate jets?
You don't?
Okay, that's why.
What exactly did they say that was incorrect? Nothing, ok, then why are you babbling?
When Obama was yelling about the tax-break for corporate jets, during the debt-ceiling fights of 2011 he brought up a tax break which was about how corporate jets were depreciated over five years instead of seven. Obama said Republicans were in bed with corporate-jet owners.
Today, Obama promised a billion dollars in taxpayer-backed subsidies for corporate jets, according to Bloomberg News.
I guess obama has evolved and decided to hop in bed with the rich evil corporate jet owning 1%.
actually this is the third flip obama has done. the first one was pushing for the accelerated depreciation schedule in the steal from us package that was passed in 2009, then flipping to changing back to the old schedule, and now wanting to subsidize the purchase of these jets. the man flips more than the average line cook does when cooking food.
That this constituted some sort of "flip-flop" on the part of Obama.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
