Forum Post: U.S. Recovery is Dependent on Fixing Trade
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 10:41 a.m. EST by ageofknowledge
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Before leaving office, U.S. President George H. W. Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) On December 17, 1992 which Bill Clinton ratified and it became law. The era of American "free" trade had begun.
The result has been a hollowing out of American jobs, wealth, and innovation to foreign trading partners and no long-lasting sustainable economic recovery for America will occur until the broken business trade paradigm is fixed.
So what went wrong? Trade works when it economically benefits both nations. In order for this to occur; however, both nations must derive somewhat equivalent economic benefits from the trade relationship.
The problem with our current "free" trade paradigm is that commercial activity is unbalanced to the point where it depletes our economy while enriching others. This has resulted in a redistribution of American jobs, wealth, and innovation which has benefited our trading partners but hurt average Americans.
Our current "free" trade amounts to nothing more than a unilateral abandonment of trade barriers by the U.S. in the hopes that the developing world will grow from accessing our market to creating viable markets which U.S. companies can serve.
Continued at http://helpfixamericafirst.blogspot.com
but you got cheap mexican goods didn't you?
Accumulated Earnings Tax A corporation can accumulate its earnings for a possible expansion or other bona fide business reasons. However, if a corporation allows earnings to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business, it may be subject to an accumulated earnings tax of 15%. If the accumulated earnings tax applies, interest applies to the tax from the date the corporate return was originally due, without extensions. To determine if the corporation is subject to this tax, first treat an accumulation of $250,000 or less generally as within the reasonable needs of most businesses. Treat an accumulation of $150,000 or less as within the reasonable needs of a business whose principal function is performing services in the fields of accounting, actuarial science, architecture, consulting, engineering, health (including veterinary services), law, and the performing arts. In determining if the corporation has accumulated earnings and profits beyond its reasonable needs, value the listed and readily marketable securities owned by the corporation and purchased with its earnings and profits at net liquidation value, not at cost. Reasonable needs of the business include the following. Specific, definite, and feasible plans for use of the earnings accumulation in the business. The amount necessary to redeem the corporation's stock included in a deceased shareholder's gross estate, if the amount does not exceed the reasonably anticipated total estate and inheritance taxes and funeral and administration expenses incurred by the shareholder's estate. The absence of a bona fide business reason for a corporation's accumulated earnings may be indicated by many different circumstances, such as a lack of regular distributions to its shareholders or withdrawals by the shareholders classified as personal loans. However, actual moves to expand the business generally qualify as a bona fide use of the accumulations. The fact that a corporation has an unreasonable accumulation of earnings is sufficient to establish liability for the accumulated earnings tax unless the corporation can show the earnings were not accumulated to allow its individual shareholders to avoid income tax.
So far I have not seen on the news one constructive point via the media coming out of the OWS movement which would accomplish what is desired to increase the amount of taxation on the 1%. As a retired IRS Agent I can tell you that if you want to get at the fat cats being the corporations here is an ironclad way to do it. There does exist a federal tax directed exactly at the problem herein in the USA which is never enforced. If a corporation witholds too much earnings it is subject to a tax called the Accumulated Earnings Tax. It is explained at Internal Revenue Code Section: " Sec. 531. Imposition of accumulated earnings tax In addition to other taxes imposed by this chapter, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the accumulated taxable income (as defined in section 535) of each corporation described in section 532, an accumulated earnings tax equal to 15 percent of the accumulated taxable income.." Anyone can call the IRS toll free number and have it explained then you can call the Office of the White House and ask the question as to why the IRS is not enforcing this law on the Corporations for whom the media states that they are holding onto trillions of dollars not spending into the economy to create jobs. I can tell you the IRS is not enforcing the law because the law does not have enough meat into it and it has not been enforced because of that thus making the law a joke. The OWS movement will absolutely grab the attention of the world wide media if it focuses on the AET and makes it a World Wide buzz in protest signs and does interviews regarding it with the business news programs of Fox Business Channel and NBC's Business Channel and CNN. If you make the AET a household term instead of Herman Cain's stupid 999 = 9% sales tax = regressive taxation of poor and compete with that you can get it to become a part of the Republican Presidential candidate debates especially with Michelle Bachman who should be aware of it being a former tax attorney. Do you think Herman even knows what the AET is? You don't so find out about it because it could force corporations to start spending their cash hoards to create jobs and end force the stopping of foreclosures because Corporation HATE and FEAR the AET when an IRS Agent brings it up in an audit examination. Put some muscle in your arguments. In addition sound off to the White House on the issue of taxing: "Unreasonable Compensation" being paid to Corporate Officers wherein "Reasonable Compensation" should = what the President of the USA makes and let the IRS go after all amounts in excess of that be considered as "unreasonable" = not deductible by the corporations on their tax returns of income tax purposes. WALL STREET will definitely not like that one and discuss that in interviews you give with the business networks. REPOST this if you understand this tax talk. If you don't ask questions for further explanation.
[Removed]