patrick.net

Vincent that's not always true. This just highlights the fact that some companies probably did not need a tax holiday. It's not a case for 100% effectiveness.

Houses almost always burn down after the fire engine showed up! What's up with that? Let's ban fire engines!

The "tax holiday" stimulus got enough votes only because even the politicians recognized that there was something wrong with the "recovery"/reflation in the 2000's . . . that it was tepid and unable to recover to the late 1990's growth rate.

"The "tax holiday" stimulus got enough votes only because even the politicians recognized that there was something wrong with the "recovery"/reflation in the 2000's . . "

You mean their campaign contributions had nothing to do with their votes???

A tax holiday only encourages compnaies to stash more money offshore in anticipation of the next tax holiday, which will give companies less incentives to hire people in the U.S. There is currently WAY more money being stashed offshore today than there was before the original 2004 tax holiday.

Even the ultar conservative right wing HERITAGE FOUNDATION has said that a tax holiday will not create jobs. So, on this issue, you have the Democrats and the Heritage Foundation AGREEING. Holy sh*t. It's the apocalypse as we know it.

"The current proposal would cut taxes, which is generally a good thing, but if another repatriation tax holiday were enacted, one should expect a similar result as last time: specifically, a surge in repatriations and little appreciable increase in domestic investment or job creation. The repatriation holiday would have little or no effect on investment and job creation, the key to the whole issue, simply because the repatriating companies are not capital-constrained today."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/10/Would-Another-Repatriation-Tax-Holiday-Create-Jobs

How does the results look if you exclude the banks?

MarsAttacks! says

Of course they did...as they keep hearing about how Obama wants to raise taxes on them and their investors. So they are stuffing the money into the proverbial mattress, so to speak. Rather prudent of them.

Ack! Acck!

Interesting. So in 2004/05, they were worried about Obama raising taxes on them? They should stop investing and start playing horses. Or the lotto.

MarsAttacks! says

tatupu70 says

nteresting. So in 2004/05, they were worried about Obama raising taxes on them? They should stop investing and start playing horses. Or the lotto.

No, they would have simply distributed it as dividends, which in turn would have been re-invested in other companies that would have created more jobs but didn't.

Ack! Acck!

Again--how did Obama's threat to raise taxes affect investment in 2004/5?

"WHEN was the layoffs? The article doesn't say, as far as I can see. How convenient."

I found this in about 3 seconds:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/14/173951/repatriation-flashback/

MarsAttacks! says

Again what? You never asked it the first time. You asked (barely) something else entirely. How can I be accused of not answering a question I was never asked?

How about you quit stalling and actually answer it?

Exxon Mobil took advantage of the 2004 tax holiday:

&width=600

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph