When Romney becomes President.......

[MrFedEx]

Will it become even worse for the working class?

Yes.

[vantexan]

You need to watch the news more often !
He wants a 20% tax max, but on a balanced budget, which will cost 456 Billion. Where do you think he will balance it from ? - Has to be taking away from somewhere else ! Take your best guess !

Guess is the word. Could the reduction in taxes give people more to spend? Not talking about penny ante Social Security temporary tax cut, but serious cuts. If people can keep more of their income and gains then investment will roll in to take advantage. The resulting economic activity will more than offset the cuts and give the gov't plenty. John F. Kennedy said so, Reagan too. The big sticking point with too many is it'll mean the rich will get richer. I don't care as long as there's good opportunity for all of us. It won't be handed to you on a platter, but as long as they don't hoard it all for themselves like in recent years then more power to them. If that's the intent then screw'em and turn the Democrat taxers loose on them. But let's give it a chance because what's happening now is definitely not working.

[pickup]

All I know is that Romney promises half a trillion in tax cuts for the rich, but it will be balanced off by the middle class no longer being able to deduct mortage interest, nor health bennies, plus higher co payments for medicare.

He thinks the rich guys will trickle down thier money - just like he does in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland ! Hahahaaaa !!!

!

Klein, it is not illegal to have foreign bank accounts, it is illegal to not disclose them. A hidden foreign account usually is an indication of hiding an income flow in order not to pay taxes on it.

That much being said, I suspect there is a dark reason behind Romney not disclosing his taxes returns from a few years back(what did he disclose? 2010 and 2011 returns?). I suspect (just a suspicion) that Romney had money in swiss bank accounts that were hidden from the eyes of the U.S. government until the Swiss banks caved in to the U.S demands for disclosure.

There was an amnesty period offered by the U.S in which all swiss bank account holders could fess up, disclose and pay back taxes without criminal liability. I suspect that Romney took advantage of that amnesty and if he did, he must have a bunch of amended returns that won't hide the amnesty he took advantage of . I think he technically paid his taxes, contrary to what Harry Reid is saying. But he probably paid them in a very round about way.

Just my two cents, and maybe not the thread to spend them.

[klein]

Guess is the word. Could the reduction in taxes give people more to spend? Not talking about penny ante Social Security temporary tax cut, but serious cuts. If people can keep more of their income and gains then investment will roll in to take advantage. The resulting economic activity will more than offset the cuts and give the gov't plenty. John F. Kennedy said so, Reagan too. The big sticking point with too many is it'll mean the rich will get richer. I don't care as long as there's good opportunity for all of us. It won't be handed to you on a platter, but as long as they don't hoard it all for themselves like in recent years then more power to them. If that's the intent then screw'em and turn the Democrat taxers loose on them. But let's give it a chance because what's happening now is definitely not working.

You're already paying less taxes then ever in your lifetime.
You're also paying the lowest interest rates in your lifetime.

How much further down do you want to go to bankrupt the country ?

[DontThrowPackages]

Its shameful how our governmental representatives act in office. I wonder if they're in office to fill their bank accounts or help the country? One party stands in the way of another all while secretly cheering on the country's failure. Will we ever see a government where the leaders do whats best for the country and not whats going to make them the most money? Greed, private contracts, lobbyist, outsourcing, perhaps talk radio, what is wrong with our country? And if it is greed, is there a limit. Will the "Job creators" suck the tit dry leaving nothing for the present and future labor forces? Is it the fault of the individual believing he could make it through life armed only a blue collar job choice? Maybe we should've had the foresight to become investment banks? Seeing that American hardly makes anything anymore. Usury is what we do best. Start life with the debt of college, then debt of Mortgage, then car loans, the things that go into the home, then medical bills, then children, then tuition for the kids. Hopefully at the end, your death insurance will cover most of the debt you left behind. If not, wife better find a new man and quick. Do I want to make $200,000 to drive a truck for 9 hours a day? No, Im not expecting that. But When companies do well, shouldn't we see something as we are the ones that help in the success? Or is the fact that our pockets are less the reason for the success?

[gman042]

Obama can rationalize all he wants. His "change" that he promised has either never materialized or has been for the worse. It is time for somebody elses boots behind the desk in the oval office. Another 4 years of Obama's detrimental policies and we will all wish we could have a do-over for 2012.
We will likely never know what Romney can/will do for this country if he does not win this election. We do, however, know what Obama has offered us....handing the US over to the world on a silver platter.

[vantexan]

You're already paying less taxes then ever in your lifetime.
You're also paying the lowest interest rates in your lifetime.

How much further down do you want to go to bankrupt the country ?

We're bankrupting the country by running up unsustainable debt. And it's not my taxes I'm worried about. To draw investors with deep pockets off the sidelines you have got to give them an incentive. And another and another. But if you are going to tax the hell out of everyone making over $250k a year then they aren't going to risk their capital only to see their gains taken from them. And no one wants to face up to the horrible truth: the rich provide the jobs. Ever get a job from a poor man, other than mowing his lawn or similar? I guess we could just line them up against a wall in front of a firing squad and confiscate all their wealth. Been done, doesn't work. More jobs mean more people spending in the economy means a rising tide raises all boats.

I realize times have changed, we are primarily a service economy now. But America still manufactures, still produces natural resources, still has the world's largest economy. We have to focus on what we do well and build from there. And yes, some are going to do better. And yes, some are going to get screwed(ok, many). But for those of us at FedEx we have to face the fact that while not everyone makes a great courier, it's a job that readily hires just about anyone off the street and makes them proficient enough to get the job done. That takes away from our ability, without a union, to demand more because we can be easily replaced. Should we get better pay and benefits? For the demands put on us absolutely. Will we? Not when we are so easily replaced and forget ever getting anything like the UPS drivers do. It's not what we want to hear, but it's the harsh reality. There are so many people out there making $10hr or less(if they even have a job) that would gladly jump at what we get. Ricochet1A is right, you have to be willing to get trained in something better if you are ever going to do better. But all the training in the world won't do you any good if we don't create an environment where good jobs are available. And President Obama should be doing that even if he incurs the wrath of environmentalists. If he won't then bring in anyone who will.

[Ricochet1a]

I'll throw my two cents in here...

Right now, U.S. businesses are sitting on $2 TRILLION in cash. That's $2 TRILLION that isn't invested, it is just sitting in cash in various banks across the world. Apple is sitting on about $120 BILLION in cash right now (two-thirds of that overseas), and is trying to figure out what to do with that cash. Apple is adding about $1 BILLION a WEEK to that cash holding. To put Apple's cash reserve into perspective, FedEx Corporation is only worth about $30 BILLION. Apple could purchase FedEx Corporation almost 4 times over with just its cash on hand.

This explains why inflation hasn't shown itself after all the "quantative easing" (printing money) that has gone on in the past 3 years (there is $2 TRILLION in unspent cash out there). For those that are interested, this is a form of what is known as the "liquidity trap". However, once these businesses start to spend that cash... watch out for inflation to hit hard and fast...

Something is going one here....

Here's what it is...

A very significant amount of that cash which companies have in their bank accounts is sitting overseas. If they choose to bring that cash back into the US, they would instantly be taxed on that - those companies don't want that. They are all waiting for Romney to get elected and some form of moratorium to be enacted on taxing profits earned overseas, enabling profits to be brought back into the US at a presumably lower rate than currently exists.

Put another way, business is waiting for Obama to be ousted before they'll start taking risks again. This isn't opinion, it is merely an analysis of how businesses are spending their profits - they're NOT right now, they're sitting on the cash.

In addition, businesses are holding back any expansion plans, since they see the costs associated with "Obamacare" and just cringe at taking in additional employees (paying for benefits when prior to the healthcare legislation, this expense didn't exist). The businesses which traditionally DIDN'T offer any sort of benefits for their part-time employees are most affected by this.

The US Federal Government (and the other G 8 governments) have done just about all they can do to stimulate the economy. Now, it is open to arguement whether all that stimulus prevented an even worse situation from developing (2nd Great Depression), or whether the stimulus ($5 TRILLION worth in the US), was merely flushed down the toilet. I personally it is somewhere between those two extremes.

Put simply, nothing is going to happen as long as the status quo is maintained. If Romney is elected, then businesses will then wait for some sign that they'll get some sort of break on repatriating profits earned overseas, or for some sign that the healthcare legislation will be repealed or waterdowned. Once this happens, business will figure that "there isn't a better time to start investing all of that cash on hand" - and the economy will start to really turn around. It won't be that Romney will wave some magic wand, it will be a matter of perception among those who have cash on hand, that the time to wait to invest will have passed, and the time to start trying to grow again will be at hand. It will be much more an exercise in psychology than anything substantive that Romney would do.

When it comes to investing, perception is oftentimes more important that what a short term analysis would indicate. If investors are worried that they'll be taxed at a higher rate (making their investment more risky), they'll tend to sit on their cash (or start purchasing hard commodities if there is a risk of inflation), and wait for a political climate that is more "favorable". That more "favorable" political climate would mean that Obama is ousted and replaced with someone more sympathetic to business.

Personally, I'm into hard commodites right now and am staying out of the stock market - just too damn much volatility and no clear sign of an upward direction. Magnify this by a few million times - and it is easy to see why the economy is stuck in the mud. The economy only grows when investment is made in generating NEW business - NOT into buying things to hedge against inflation and uncertainty.

Part of what is driving this "liquidity trap", is tax policy - pure and simple. Countries around the world are competing against each other in trying to offer the best incentives to businesses to locate and do their "business" there. The primary way they do this is by offering a low tax rate - but just high enough to bring in enough revenue. The US will have one of the highest tax rates on business in the world come 2013 - this isn't helping. One can argue till they are blue in the face about "fairness" - in the end, business goes to where its overall operating cost (including tax liability) is lowest.

I could keep on going here, but unless one really wants an additional 4 years of what has already gone on for the past few years - then Obama has to go. It's not a matter of voting FOR the candidate that one "likes", it a matter of "voting for the least damaging of two bad choices". South Park had an episode in which they parodied the election of 2008 (I think that was it), where they illustrated the choices the students had were between a "turd sandwich" and a "douche" (as candidates). That pretty much sums it up right now. The real choice is trying to figure out which one will do the least amount of damage - and potentially get people to start spending again.

[vantexan]

R1a I think you meant 5 trillion in stimulus. And you just illustrated why you were able to find a better career and I'm still a courier.

[Ricochet1a]

R1a I think you meant 5 trillion in stimulus. And you just illustrated why you were able to find a better career and I'm still a courier.

Corrected...