precisely and the President has proposed cutting that particular aspect of the loophole so that we are not effectively rewarding companies for moving their business overseas. A plant owner choosing to relocate his business is his own decisions and, frankly, part of being a capitalist. That said, the tax payers shouldn't reward him with a free move. Romney believes that this particular loop hole should stay in place. you also make a good case that many of these loopholes need to be, at the very least, rethought. this is only one example but there are many others. there are also a handful of loopholes that are very beneficial to the middle class like the mortgage interest deduction which should remain in place, at least for now.
He said everything was on the table. Show me where he has said he wants to keep this in place. Additionally, the tax payers are rewarding him with a free move. They, at most, are paying whatever that particular company's tax rate is as a percentage of the cost of the move.
What you are effectively arguing is that businesses should not be allowed to deduct operating expenses. I don't understand that.
Doing what he does best, bowing to a leader. This is what happens when a Businessman goes up against a career politician.
No, but you are effectively putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about businesses being allowed to operating expenses; I would be foolish to espouse such a silly idea because I would be shooting myself in the foot. That said, the loophole that allows for tax payers to bear the burden for companies to ship their plants overseas is one that makes absolutely no good common sense. Whether you like it or not, it IS paying companies to export jobs.
once more you are assuming that what Romney says is true by stating, "he said everything was on the table." why do you believe him when he says this? we are talking about someone who has changed his position on issues repeatedly throughout his career, not to mention during this campaign. If I were the President a few nights ago I think I would have admonished Romney for trying to effectively debate himself. Further, show us what Romney's plan is first and then you can start asking me to show you anything. So far as I can tell there isn't one or we would know it by now. Obama's plan is clear as day on his web site for anyone who wants to look at, scrutinize it, etc. Where is Mitt's?
Moving a plant is an operating expense. That is a fact that cannot be argued. Is it ok with you that companies deduct pay roll or depreciation or rent?
Obama has never change a position? Furthermore, you are assuming Romney is lieing so your entire post is :
I never said otherwise. Moving a plant within the US is an operating expense and should be deductable. If you are going to move that plant overseas then why in the hell should the tax payers shoulder that burden? what benefit do they get for footing the bill? Yes, it okay with me that businesses have deductions. My only bone of contention is that we do not compensate companies for shipping jobs overseas. If the business owner wants to ship his plant overseas then so be it but don't ask the US tax payers to fund it.
That is a false premise. The taxpayers share no additional burden becasue a company takes a tax deduction. Deductions and exemptions are part of the tax structure, and it is ignorant to claim the burden is in any manner changed by the actions of anyone. When Facebook de-patriated himself to avoid paying 1 billion dollars in taxes did the rest of us shoulder anything no. That dude kept more of his money.
