Let’s Have Another REAL Tea Party

by Ben Hoffman

The original Tea Party on Dec. 16, 1773 was a revolt against the Tea Act, which cut taxes for the British East India Tea Company so they could undercut the prices of the independent tea companies in what was then the British colonies. It would have expanded the East India’s monopoly and put the little guy out of business.

Today’s Tea Party protesters are protesting high taxes, even though their taxes have been cut under Obama. The original Boston Tea Party was a revolt AGAINST tax cuts.

Today, we have companies like Walmart putting the little guy out of business. We have huge corporations paying little to no income taxes while small businesses are carrying the load. For example, ExxonMobil earned 35 billion dollars in profits last year but paid ZERO in taxes to the U.S. government. It did pay $15 billion to foreign countries, though. Thanks a lot for that one. Chevron earned $18 billion in profits and paid $8 billion in taxes, but only $200 million to the U.S. G.E. not only paid nothing here in taxes; it got a tax credit! Conoco is one of the better oil companies and paid $13 billion in taxes. It gets most of its oil from South America rather than the Middle East as Exxon and Chevron do. Bank of America made 4.4 billion in profits but paid nothing in taxes. Nada. Zilch. That after we bailed them out. Verizon made $1.2 billion in profits but is taxed at a rate of only 10.5%. Hewlett-Packard made $1.75 in profits and is taxed at a rate of 18.6%. That’s a lot lower than my tax rate. And we can thank Carly Fiorina for shipping most of HP’s jobs to China.

59 Comments to “Let’s Have Another REAL Tea Party”

Moe
April 15, 2010 at 7:26 AM

The 1883 Tea Party was a protest against a multi national corporation getting an unfavorable advantage against American small businesses and citizens. Do today’s partiers realize they’re on the wrong damn side?

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 15, 2010 at 8:48 AM
  
  [Do today’s partiers realize they’re on the wrong damn side?]
  
  They don’t know anything that won’t fit on a bumper sticker. They know the slogan “taxation without representation,” and since they’re being taxed and Democrats are in power, they feel they’re not being represented.
  
  They only like democracy when their guy or gal wins.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Why are anti Tea Party people so hate filled and dishonest ? Why are peaceful Americans practicing their Constitutional right to protest Bad Government, being plotted against by thugs using the same tactics the Nazis employed in the 1930s ? Why aren’t Democrats condemning these people ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/oregon-probes-teacher-determined-demolish-tea-party/

” A middle school teacher in Oregon who announced his intention “to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party” on his “Crash the Tea Party” Web site is under investigation by his state’s Teacher Standards & Practices Commission. ”

” He has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets, and acting as offensively as possible — anything short of throwing punches. “

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM
  
  Why are your standards for Democrats so much higher than your standards for Republicans?
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 15, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Why are your standards for Democrats so much higher than your standards for Republicans? ”

You tell me that if this guy was a right winger and planning to do this crap against a Liberal group, you would not post it ?

Lets talk standards . Republicans throw their sinners under the bus much quicker than Democrats . What makes the press gleeful about exposing a Republican, brings a yawn when it is a Democrat, because it’s expected .

They can look a the Republican and say see the hypocrite violated his standards, but a Democrat doing the same thing violated nothing because the standards are so low .

Oh, and as far as Exxon and the rest not paying their share of taxes, they should pay nothing . Who do you think Exxon is ? Is there a “Ben Exxon” ? Exxon is all of it’s employees and all of it’s Stockholders . They get TAXED !!!!!!!

Exxon competes against foreign companies who get much better tax treatment from their governments than it does . When Exxon pays it’s profits out to shareholders, then that should be taxed . Otherwise you are hampering an AMERICAN company that has AMERICAN employees . Oh but shhhh, don’t tell that to Obama, he can’t wait to put those immoral oil workers on unemployment like he did to Casino workers in Las Vegas .

If these AMERICAN companies anger you so much with their profitability, then buy their stock and ease your guilty conscience by paying your fair share of taxes on your ill gotten gains . YOU would then be Ben Exxon or Ben Walmart.

I do thank you for throwing GE into the list of Corporate evil doers . I consider them a polyp up Obama’s colon because they profit from the green agenda and own that Ship of Fools called MSNBC .

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM
  
  I pay more in self-employment taxes than ExxonMobil pays in corporate taxes.
  
  But the question is: what’s best for our country? Other countries tax ExxonMobil so why don’t we? Our country is deep in debt caused by huge deficits and corporations should pay their share just like I pay my share.
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 15, 2010 at 5:25 PM
    
    Let’s also note that GE paid no taxes in 2009, either. I believe they even got a tax credit?
Vern R. Kaine
April 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Found a source (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167

Note how GE likes to lose money at home and make it overseas. The “tax the corporations to pay their fair share” thing sounds nice, but if it gets too restrictive, they’ll just find ways around it like they do now. They’ll also use it as an excuse to lay people off, too.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM
  
  [They’ll also use it as an excuse to lay people off, too.]
  
  I doubt it. They don’t hire people just for the hell of it, so they’re still going to need the same number of people even if they’re taxed more.
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 16, 2010 at 9:05 AM
    
    No, they hire and lay off people based on anticipated profit margins, hence they do it in advance. Since the losses haven’t actually happened yet, it’s an excuse, especially in the oil & gas sector where futures are at least 3 months out.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM
    
    Economists can go both ways on whether taxes help create jobs (http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_e41e1780-2b6d-11df-b151-001cc4c03286.html) or kill them (http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_89f0ea98-44c8-11df-8bcc-001cc4c03286.html – Note: columnist cites Thomas A. Roe Study).
    
    To make more sense of it, we need to be clear on whether we’re talking increasing/lowering the corporate income tax rate, or increasing/lowering corporate taxes altogether. From there we need to stop thinking like Economists in theoryland or a classroom, and start thinking like CEOs in reality.
    
    Here’s reality: if I’ve got one worker who costs me $100 for every hour of productivity, and you increase my payroll taxes, health care costs, environmental taxes, etc. ( etc. etc.) by 20% (for example), I’m now paying $120 for that same hour of productivity, WITH NO INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY. So now, every 4 people I employ cost as much as 5 did before the tax hikes, and I have less money to grow my business with.
    
    If my market’s in California, then it may make financial sense to be in a heavily taxed state (same goes for the country). If not, I’ll locate somewhere else, like Nevada, and service California from there, because the taxes are lower.
    
    The reality is that lower taxes mean I can put more into advertising, productive capacity, sales capacity, etc.(which, btw, helps the local economy) and generate more revenue. Based on that revenue (or even its potential), I can now decide if I need more people.
    
    The lower my above the line taxes are, the more I can invest. Corporate INCOME tax is what I pay after all that’s done, and matters less as I have ways to offset those with whatever. Its the above the line corporate taxes that really make the difference.
    
    The left will sit there and say that these little tax cuts here and there are so great and wonderful. That’s like people getting giddy over a Discover Card’s 5% cash back rebate on purchases after it’s just paid 26% in interest. It’s both ridiculous and naive. For anyone to think that increasing the money that government steals from businesses (to make up for their own inefficiency) makes it back to the private sector with any sense of efficiency and somehow “creates jobs” is glue-sniffing. The government doesn’t create jobs – business owners do, so leave more at the end of the day to help us do it.
    
    Btw – the amount companies have to pay for these above the line taxes is huge, and from that perspective, your comment that you pay more taxes than Exxon is false (or using your words, a “LIE!” )
    
    Food for thought:
    Some of these “above the line” taxes: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html
    How increased taxes worked for California: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8bQDqe2NPo (Ben, this one references cartoonists).
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM
    
    Bill Feehan is just a shill for the Republican party. The first sentence in his article is a lie. He claims: “In a recent article, economist Douglas Kane argued that higher taxes result in more jobs.” Nowhere in Kane’s article does he make the argument the higher taxes result in more jobs. This is what he does say:
    
    [There is a connection between higher taxes, good places to live and a growing economy. Nine of the Forbes 10 "best places to raise a family" are located in the 25 states with higher taxes and "bad" business climates. Of Money Magazine's 100 best places to live, 28 are in the 10 black states, and only 17 are in the 10 white states.
    
    The numbers show that business is just as likely or more likely to thrive and grow in places where it is "good to live" and "good to raise a family" and taxes are relatively high, as in places where the "business climate" is good and taxes are relatively low.
    
    The median household income is higher and growing faster in the 25 states with higher taxes and bad business climates. Also, there are 29 million more jobs in those same higher-tax states, and the gap has grown by a million during the past 10 years.]
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 16, 2010 at 12:46 PM
    
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY
    
    Quote: “Ballmer, Symantec Corp. Chairman John Thompson and the heads of smaller companies such as privately held Bentley Systems, an Exton, Pennsylvania-based maker of engineering software, said such policies would hurt domestic investment, reduce shareholder value and increase the cost of employing U.S. workers.
    
    Ballmer said that, while the Obama proposals would preserve expense deductions related to research and experimentation costs, the overall deduction limits for companies that defer tax on foreign profits would raise the cost of employing U.S. workers. Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders would require Microsoft to cut costs, he said, meaning many jobs would be moved out of the country.”
    
    My point was that economic theory on taxes can be argued either way, but the business reality is that raising taxes negatively impacts investment, job creation, and job growth.
    
    More food for thought:
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/economy/unemployment_taxes/index.htm
    
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/FACT_SHEET_Small_Business%20_jobs_and_Wages_Tax_Cut.pdf
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 17, 2010 at 7:30 AM
    
    I disagree. Within that article, you also quote:
    [The numbers show that business is just as likely or more likely to thrive and GROW in places where it is "good to live" and "good to raise a family" and taxes are relatively high..."] Emphasis mine, but how do businesses actually GROW – by firing people? He’s clearly insinuating that businesses create jobs in high-tax environments. You’re chastising Feehan for Kane not saying this specifically. Kane can’t – it’s theory, not fact, and a weak one at that.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 17, 2010 at 8:03 AM
    
    [Feehan is a shill for the Republican Party]. And Kane isn’t for the Dems? Please. Kane’s argument is totally weak, and Feehan points that out, but here we go again – the usual “show me a ‘credible’ economist” crap from Democrats in order to contradict it.
    
    Kane is an economist, Feehan isn’t, so here’s some economists supporting Feehan stating that high taxes hurt jobs, innovation, investment, etc:
    http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ce-20100223.html
    Here’s also the Tax Foundation theorizing that high taxes hurt jobs, innovation, investment, etc.. They provide more detailed support:
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/25569.html
    
    Let’s not pretend as laypeople that we have anything close to something higher than a PhD in economics which would give us the ability to argue or criticize an economists’ position from theory. Let’s instead look at business reality, and use common sense.
    
    Kane’s theory conveniently ignores a number of business realities, some of which I’ve already stated. He does nothing to effectively explain migrations to more business-friendly states (or countries), and by his commentary I don’t think he has ever owned or run a successful business in his life.
    
    Feehan, regardless of whether you hate the (R) behind his name or not, is correct in his observation. If you talk to any collection of businesses owners across the country that actually hire a significant amount of full-time staff, they’ll agree with Feehan 100x more than they’ll agree with Kane. My own work with SBA clients and Chambers of Commerce in North America support this.
    
    (D) or (R) regardless, my support for tax policies around job creation is with those of us who actually create the jobs in reality, not the economists and politicians who create them in their heads.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM
    
    [My point was that economic theory on taxes can be argued either way, but the business reality is that raising taxes negatively impacts investment, job creation, and job growth.]
    
    While it can be argued either way, that doesn’t make it true. The fact that you can’t find a credible economist who agrees with you says a lot.
    
    The problem with your theory is: business expenses are tax deductable, so the tax rate has little bearing on how much a company reinvests back into the company. It can actually have a positive effect. For example, if profits are taxed at a high rate, the shareholders might complain, but the company is more likely to reinvest that money or do more hiring to avoid paying the taxes.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 17, 2010 at 9:52 AM
    
    [it’s theory, not fact, and a weak one at that.]
    
    No, it’s correlation — not causation.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 18, 2010 at 9:08 AM
    
    [Kane is an economist, Feehan isn’t, so here’s some economists supporting Feehan stating that high taxes hurt jobs, innovation, investment, etc:]
    
    Well, sure… high taxes hurt jobs… but we’re a long ways away from “high” taxes. We have to do something to pay down the debt. Even teabaggers don’t want to cut popular gov’t social programs, so the only way to do it is raising taxes, especially on people like John Paulson who made a billion dollars betting against the economy and only pays 15% in taxes since it’s all capital gains.
    
    Also, there’s a lot of evidence that tax rates have little effect on jobs. After all, Clinton raised taxes and we had the biggest economic expansion in decades. Bush cut taxes and the economy was flat and then collapsed.
    
    Also, these big oil companies pay taxes in foreign countries. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes here? What happened to “America first?”
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 18, 2010 at 11:27 PM
    
    [The fact that you can’t find a credible economist who agrees with you says a lot.]
    Once again, the arrogant claim that all intelligent economists are somehow Democrats. If people want to live in theoryland and quote economists all the time who also live in theoryland, they can knock themselves out as far as I’m concerned. My point (again) is that if you want to find out how taxes affect businesses and investment, talk to actual businesspeople instead of columnists or theorists.
    
    [The problem with your theory is...]
    First, it’s not a “theory”, it’s reality – mine and about 6 other business owners and entrepreneurs that I work with on a daily basis in 4 states and 2 provinces who deal specifically with job creation and business growth. We are also very involved with the Chambers of Commerce and business development councils and their members in each of those locations, and I can tell you that there is not one business we come across who thinks higher taxes improves their ability to reinvest in their company or create jobs. I can also tell you that no one runs to an economist for advice on creating jobs, either, so I don’t know how you guys all think that economists are somehow the experts in this area. All economists do re: job creation is tell governments where to waste their next batch of money.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 1:21 AM
    
    Ben – higher taxes can actually have a “positive effect” because it will force me to reinvest or hire?! Where are you coming from on this? In psychological theory, perhaps. In business reality, though, that’s ridiculous – ESPECIALLY in a downturn economy.
    
    The best practice in a downturn economy before it hits bottom is for a company to maintain a strong cash position. By simply saying a company will/should “reinvest or hire”, you automatically assume demand and a corresponding increase in revenue that is nowhere close to being predictable right now for a small business.
    
    Theory may say the best time to invest is when prices are low (like in a depressed economy), but the reality is that companies CAN’T invest right now because there’s no credit available, and they need all the cash they have on hand to weather the storm. And what you’re talking about isn’t like writing off a few business lunches, either – people and plant are huge expenses that provide far from immediate returns. No business in their right mind is going to hire people or make capital expenditures/plant improvements of this nature when they’re worrying about how to keep the employees or the buildings they already have. They’d be stupid to do so.
    
    It’s tax deductible, you say? More great news, in theory. Where’s this new revenue that they’re supposed to write these deductions off against? Maybe next year’s, but what if that revenue is 20% below projections causing the company to lay off even more employees and decrease capacity? Their shareholders will crucify them, and further decrease the company’s cash position once they find out the company hired unnecessary employees and added unnecessary plant improvements to save $5,000 in taxes using a $500,000 overspend.
    
    Thankfully for business, Obama disagrees with you and is actually proposing a decrease in business taxes rather than an increase. Then again, he’s only the President, and not a “credible economist.”
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 1:42 AM
    
    [Also, these big oil companies pay taxes in foreign countries. Why shouldn’t they pay taxes here? What happened to “America first?”]
    
    Wasn’t that a Republican slogan during the campaign? haha.
    It’s not just big oil, it’s big corps of all kinds, including your beloved GE! I think they’re playing a shell game, and I don’t think it’s right, but I think the govt is stuck between a rock and a hard place being forced to accept 50% of something rather than 100% of nothing (figuratively).
    
    America simply can’t compete on labor anymore. Our workforce is becoming less educated (as a whole), and as we all know, far less expensive. So I imagine these large companies are telling the government, “Hey, you force us to bring 90% of our labor back home and we’ll have no profits left. You’ll have to increase taxes on the middle class to make up for it, or, you let us take advantage of the lower labor rates overseas and hope to make some tax on the difference.”
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 19, 2010 at 8:44 AM
    
    [I can tell you that there is not one business we come across who thinks higher taxes improves their ability to reinvest in their company or create jobs.]
    
    Nobody makes the claim that higher taxes improves their ability to create jobs. You’re arguing a strawman.
    
    Businesses hire people to do work. When more workers are needed, they hire more people. When less workers are needed, the lay off people. Taxes have very little to do with that when you’re talking about profitable companies.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 19, 2010 at 8:48 AM
    
    [It’s not just big oil, it’s big corps of all kinds, including your beloved GE!]
    
    My beloved GE? You’re sounding more and more like Alan these days, Vern. I’m against all these giant media conglomerates. They should be broken up and the deregulation signed by Clinton should be repealed.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM
    
    [Thankfully for business, Obama disagrees with you and is actually proposing a decrease in business taxes rather than an increase.]
    
    They’re targeted tax cuts for companies that hire new workers and invest in expanding their businesses, which is exactly what is needed. Across the board tax cuts are an inefficient way to stimulate the economy.
    
    You can also have targeted tax increases such as windfall profits taxes, taxes on companies that ship our jobs overseas, companies that don’t provide adequate benefits, etc…
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM
    
    [Nobody makes the claim that higher taxes improves their ability to create jobs. You’re arguing a strawman.]
    Ben, you just stated in another reply that higher taxes “can be a positive thing”, and then you reference reinvestment and hiring right immediately after it. If that’s not you expressing the opinion that higher taxes can result in job growth, what opinion regarding lower taxes and job growth are you expressing?
    
    I’m not arguing a strawman – you’re just being vague.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM
    
    [your beloved GE!]
    It wasn’t to label (although it probably was a friendly jab!) I was pointing out that you mentioned “big oil” and their shiftiness while (conveniently?) neglecting to mention GE’s shenanigans in there as well. Since oil companies seem typically to be seen as the antichrist on the left (pollution, price gouging, etc.) and GE to be the savior (“green technology”, Obama’s buddies, etc.) your neglect to mention GE in that post appeared to be a result of a bias. It’s your blog, so bias-away, I just wanted to make a point that GE was playing the shell game, too, just like Exxon was.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM
    
    [your neglect to mention GE in that post appeared to be a result of a bias. I just wanted to make a point that GE was playing the shell game, too, just like Exxon was.]
    
    No, I did mention GE with an exclamation point.
    
    “G.E. not only paid nothing here in taxes; it got a tax credit!”
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 3:27 PM
    
    [No, I did mention GE with an exclamation point. ]
    Oops, yep, you’re right – you did. I missed it. My apologies.
Vern R. Kaine
April 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Besides, corporations pay no real tax anyways, no matter what the rate happens to be. It all gets passed on.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 19, 2010 at 8:45 AM
  
  [Besides, corporations pay no real tax anyways, no matter what the rate happens to be. It all gets passed on.]
  
  That’s not true, either. Supply and demand determine prices, unless there’s collusion and price fixing.
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM
    
    Yes, and unless you live in a dreamworld, above-the-line taxes and fees are a COST OF SUPPLY.
Alan Scott
April 15, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

”

I pay more in self-employment taxes than ExxonMobil pays in corporate taxes.

But the question is: what’s best for our country? Other countries tax ExxonMobil so why don’t we? Our country is deep in debt caused by huge deficits and corporations should pay their share just like I pay my share. ”
First off huge deficits are caused by overspending,,,,end of story .

Now let’s talk about what the Great Man you put in the White House wants to do . Your Hero wants to end Deferral, which lets American companies defer the American tax on foreign earnings until they send the money home . This is a key reason that American Corporations can still compete against their foreign competitors . The American Corporate tax is much higher than the foreign countries tax their companies .

Are you still with me ? Good . Now you and Obama are always whining about BIG CORPORATIONS sending jobs overseas, but do you ever ask yourselves why they do it ? And it is not just the slave wages overseas . It is our humongous Corporate tax rates relative to our trading partners . Even foreign companies think twice about putting a factory HERE, because of our Socialist taxes .

If Obama had a brain he would cut Corporate tax rates, make it cheaper to do business in the US, and unemployment would drop to historic levels . Factories would relocate here, the economy would boom and he would go down as a great president . That would require a Clintonian abandonment of Socialist-Progressive Principles .

Reply
Vern R. Kaine
April 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM

See – Dems lie, too!
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-false-tax-attack/

Reply
Alan Scott
April 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” For example, if profits are taxed at a high rate, the shareholders might complain, but the company is more likely to reinvest that money or do more hiring to avoid paying the taxes. ”

Repeat after me, Profits Good, Taxes Bad .

You go in to business to make a profit,,,,right ? Even if you reinvest the money, at some point you have to pay the providers of capital . Those are called ” Owners “. Sometimes they are called funny names like ” Stockholders “.

When you Obama-tax capital providers, I mean when you “Overtax ” capital providers, you get less capital . You get more unemployment . Examine post WW2 Great Britain . Owners do a much economically better job in deciding where to spend their hard earned money than Politicians in Washington .

” Even teabaggers don’t want to cut popular gov’t social programs, so the only way to do it is raising taxes, ”

You are wrong. No matter how much tax money you send to Washington to feed the Beast, he wants more . You have only made him Fatter . Politicians waste tax money it is in their DNA. Examples from PORKULUS ,

An almost $ 5,00,000 grant to study Facebook and other social networks .

Almost three and a half million dollars to dig a turtle tunnel in Florida . I’m all for turtles, but come on .

$54 Million for the Napa Valley Wine Train project . Now I love trains . My Grandfather was an Engineer . But, this is for the Wealthy, so you should hate it .

” Well, sure… high taxes hurt jobs… but we’re a long ways away from “high” taxes. ”

” Also, there’s a lot of evidence that tax rates have little effect on jobs. ”

Well which is it ???? You know you really ought to have someone proof read your posts, so that you do not contradict,,,Yourself .

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 18, 2010 at 1:59 PM
  
  [” Also, there’s a lot of evidence that tax rates have little effect on jobs. ”]
  
  Okay, it should be: there’s a lot of evidence that tax rates have little effect on jobs until you get beyond the point where taxes are too high to allow companies to operate. We’re a long ways from that point.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 18, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Okay, it should be: there’s a lot of evidence that tax rates have little effect on jobs until you get beyond the point where taxes are too high to allow companies to operate. We’re a long ways from that point. ”

Can you tell me what that point is ? I would say that it has already been reached at the State level in certain places . New York, California, and New Jersey, judging by how fast businesses are fleeing to greener pastures .

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 19, 2010 at 9:04 AM
  
  [Can you tell me what that point is ?]
  
  That would be the point at which companies flee the U.S. to operate in countries where their tax rates would be lower.
  
  Reply
pino
April 19, 2010 at 6:46 PM

The original Tea Party on Dec. 16, 1773 was a revolt against the Tea Act

So let me get this straight. The Tea Party was a revolt against a government tax. Something the government did?

which cut taxes for the British East India Tea Company so they could undercut the prices of the independent tea companies in what was then the British colonies.

Right. So, we have a government doing something to someone and not doing the same thing to someone else. In this case, the government, the State, is taxing someone but NOT taxing someone else. Tracking so far?

It would have expanded the East India’s monopoly and put the little guy out of business.

Huh? Monopoly? Where do you see monopoly? We may have a case where the government intervened for the benefit of one corporation at the expense of others, but until the government did something, TAX, by your own admission the “Little Guy” was competing just fine with the “Big Guy”.

In other words, there wasn’t a monopoly until regulation was introduced. Which, by the way, is exactly as every free-market guy and doll says is how it works.

Today’s Tea Party protesters are protesting

…BIG government.

Today’s Tea Party protesters are protesting high taxes, even though their taxes have been cut under Obama. The original Boston Tea Party was a revolt AGAINST tax cuts.

Jeez, I thought you were on a roll…..The Tea Party is protesting unequal taxation, government regulation that favors one over another and a government too big.

Today, we have companies like Walmart putting

…an average of better than $3,000 into the pocket of every American household. EVEN if they don’t shop there. AND employees have health care. And they get to get promoted. AND they make more than minimum wage. AND they can grow up to be Regional Manager. Walmart is a place where the young and inexperienced are given a shot to prove themselves. Learn valuable on the job training and even move up.

Mom and pop? You get to sweep the floor until mom or pop passes; then ya get to work for Jr.

For example, ExxonMobil

….paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of Americans. That’s 65 million people.

And we can thank Carly Fiorina for shipping most of HP’s jobs to China.

Ya got that one wrong…

And we can thank ~~Carly Fiorina~~ a Liberal government that taxes American corporations to death for shipping most of HP’s jobs to China.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM
  
  Pino, you’re spinning out of control!!! Look out!!! You’re gonna crash!!!
  
  Reply
  - pino
    April 19, 2010 at 9:43 PM
    
    Pino, you’re spinning out of control!!! Look out!!! You’re gonna crash!!!
    
    Very thoughtful response.* I’ll contemplate much tonight before going to bed.
    
    Not.
    
    *Me thinks this is the first time I’ve seen Ben unable to respond.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 19, 2010 at 10:58 PM
    
    I don’t respond to spin.
  - pino
    April 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM
    
    I don’t respond to spin.
    
    Take it one at a time.
    
    Monopoly: How did they have a monopoly condition? According to your post it was due to the direct actions of the government imposing unfair taxes.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 20, 2010 at 9:04 AM
    
    [Monopoly: How did they have a monopoly condition? According to your post it was due to the direct actions of the government imposing unfair taxes.]
    
    No, the government was trying to give the E. India Tea Company an unfair advantage by cutting their taxes so they could drive the little guy out of business. Thus, the independent tea producers and importers revolted.
  - pino
    April 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM
    
    No, the government was trying to give the E. India Tea Company an unfair advantage by cutting their taxes so they could drive the little guy out of business.
    
    Umm…you just said what I just said.
    
    There was no monopoly before. Then the government created a situation where a monopoly could exist. Which, by the way, is the only way in which a monopoly CAN exist. With State help.
    
    So, the Tea Party, the original one, was not protesting taxes en mass, they were simply protesting UNFAIR taxes. Ones that would tax one group of people while not taxing another.
    
    Which is like, exactly what is going on here.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 20, 2010 at 1:08 PM
    
    [There was no monopoly before. Then the government created a situation where a monopoly could exist. Which, by the way, is the only way in which a monopoly CAN exist. With State help.]
    
    That’s way wrong. Without government regulations, you wind up with collusion between a few companies to drive others out of business. You get big companies cutting prices of the little guy to drive them out of business. To do that, often the big guys will sell at a loss for a while, which they can afford to do but the little guy can’t.
    
    Those are just a few examples.
  - pino
    April 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM
    
    That’s way wrong. Without government regulations, you wind up with collusion between a few companies to drive others out of business. You get big companies cutting prices of the little guy to drive them out of business. To do that, often the big guys will sell at a loss for a while, which they can afford to do but the little guy can’t.
    
    If you can give me 3 real world examples of that, I’ll buy you a beer.
Vern R. Kaine
April 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Unless we want to lower our standard of living to that of Mexico’s (or worse), we’ll never be able to compete globally on labor costs.

As for moving jobs overseas, we’re talking an estimated 3m jobs. Most of my family are union or blue collar, so I don’t like that their jobs are at risk but the reality is their jobs have been at risk for a very long time. The manufacturing era in America is LONG over. The value of a front-line worker in America has moved from their hands (labor) to their heads (innovation), and people need to realize that.

I know it’s pro-American to want everything to happen here at home, and I’d certainly like that, but those glory days of “Made In America” are long gone and they will never come back. I think we’re going to need to be “Innovated In America” if we’re ever going to truly compete going forward.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 20, 2010 at 9:21 AM
  
  [I think we’re going to need to be “Innovated In America” if we’re ever going to truly compete going forward.]
  
  We’re doomed then. There will never be enough jobs in “innovation” jobs to put everybody to work. According to the World Economic Forum, Sweden leads in information technology, followed by Singapore, Denmark, and Switzerland, and finally the U.S. China leads in clean energy technology. Japan makes some of the best cars. I doubt the U.S. is in the top five for autos.
  
  No, we need to bring some manufacturing back to the U.S., which will mean tariffs. There’s nothing wrong with building things, but working with your hands seems to not be very highly regarded any more.
  
  Just a few decades ago, construction work paid pretty well. Now, much of the skilled work is done by immigrants and wages have declined as a result. Even things like furniture building have gone to China for their cheap labor.
  
  Most other countries have protectionist policies. We need to impose a few here.
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM
    
    Innovation can create new products, new services, new jobs. I don’t think we’ll ever get 3 million jobs back, but it will help. If we’re not leaders in creating new ideas and new technology, we’re done for. Some incentives to encourage jobs at home and buying local would be great, but overall it’s a fine line to walk in the whole scheme of things. At the end of the day, it comes down to everyone’s mutual fund returns.
    
    Your WEF rankings, Sweden leads in what, developing IT, or using it?
    
    “A few decades ago” – that might as well be millenniums ago, huh?! I used to have a TRS-80/CoCo II with a cassette drive.
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 20, 2010 at 4:33 PM
    
    [If we’re not leaders in creating new ideas and new technology, we’re done for.]
    
    Yes, that’s why we need to make education more affordable.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    April 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM
    
    [that's why we need to make education more affordable.]
    I tried that, twice, that I reference elsewhere. I’m all for greater access to education, but not under the assumption that if it’s free or cheaper, most people would get educated. Most don’t even get a library card. I think this quote by Jim Rohn says it best:
    
    “My mentor taught me that success is a numbers game and very early he started asking me my numbers. He asked, “How many books have you read in the last ninety days?” I said, “Zero”; he said, “Not a good number.” He said, “How many classes have you attended in the last six months to improve your skills?” And I said, “Zero.” He said, “Not a good number.” Then he said, “In the last six years that you’ve been working, how much money have you saved and invested?” I said, “Zero” and he said, “Not a good number.” Then here’s what he said, “Mr. Rohn, if these numbers don’t change your life won’t change. But” he said, “If you’ll start improving these numbers then perhaps you’ll start to see everything change for you.”
    
    In our educational “experiment” only 10% of people took advantage of it. In Jim Rohn’s words (may he rest in peace), “Not a good number.”
  - Ben Hoffman
    April 21, 2010 at 9:57 AM
    
    [In our educational “experiment” only 10% of people took advantage of it.]
    
    When you’re talking 300 million people, 10% is a lot.
Vern R. Kaine
April 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Interesting article…

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/outsource.html

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM
  
  That’s an old episode. The numbers they quoted are from 2002. I don’t know about the other occupations, but Programmer salaries in India have increased due to all the jobs being outsourced there, so it’s not quite as much of a savings as it once was.
  
  Software often consists of 100s of thousands of lines of code, or even millions. Software jobs have been outsourced to countries where the native language is something other than English and while they’ve saved money initially, maintenance has been a nightmare. Also, often you get what you pay for.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” No, we need to bring some manufacturing back to the U.S., which will mean tariffs ”

” Now, much of the skilled work is done by immigrants and wages have declined as a result. ”

It sounds to me like you are making a case for controlling illegal immigration . Tariffs keep out cheap foreign goods . Doesn’t border enforcement keep out cheap foreign labor . I am not against highly skilled foreign labor, but cheap illegal labor is basically the same as cheap Chinese manufacturing goods . Both hurt well paying American jobs .

I do not buy that illegals take jobs Americans won’t take . If I am unemployed and not getting a government “welfare” check I will take any job that pays my bills . Americans just won’t take certain jobs at slave wages .

Look at slaughter houses and meat cutting plants . They are havens for illegal hiring . I’ve seen some small scale pig slaughtering in summer and it is as disgusting as you can imagine. Not my fantasy job . But you pay me enough money and I would be glad to do it . Maybe enough money to make Obama vilify me as “rich” .

Now let me see, which party says they are on the side of Organized Labor, yet they welcome illegal immigration as a source of new poor and new victims from which to mine new voters ? Geez I wish I could remember who they are . I think there name begins with a D .

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM
  
  Republicans are for illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor. That’s why they are against prosecuting employers who use illegal aliens.
  
  We don’t have an illegal immigration problem; we have an illegal alien employer problem. Crack down on illegal alien employers and you solve the illegal immigration problem.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Crack down on illegal alien employers and you solve the illegal immigration problem. ”

So, you agree that there is an illegal immigration problem ?

If you look historically, high rates of immigration have always hurt American Labor . During the industrial revolution of the 1800s as profits at industry exploded, industrialists recruited laborers in Eastern and Southern Europe to hold wages down .

The early 1900s book The Jungle freaked everyone out with it’s portrait of the crap that went in to American food . It’s real intent was to document the way successive waves of immigrants were used against one another by big business .

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  April 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM
  
  Yes, and the book led to new government regulation to stop the abuses.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
April 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Yes, and the book led to new government regulation to stop the abuses ”

So you read the book ? At any rate the book may have stopped the chopped off fingers going in to your hotdog, wait my hotdog, you can’t eat pork can you ? Again the intent was to shed light on the exploitation of immigrants by big business . I don’t know that that was ever fixed . As long as you have giant waves of immigrants overwhelming the system, Labor gets royally screwed .

Reply

	Mindylee on 14 Elements of Fascism
	Jennalynn on 14 Elements of Fascism
	Anonymous on News Corp. (Fox “news…
	http://snurl.com/26j… on Linus and Lucy – Vince…
	Defense Attorney in… on Tea Party Manifesto

DRUDGE RETORT

Search Drudge Retort

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Let’s Have Another REAL Tea Party

Like this:

59 Comments to “Let’s Have Another REAL Tea Party”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Meta

Recent Posts