Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 04:45 PM Jul 2013

Wiping The Corporate Tax Code Clean (of tax loopholes) Could Raise Money And Help The Middle Class

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/03/2256471/wiping-the-corporate-tax-code-clean-could-raise-money-and-help-the-middle-class/

There is good reason to be wary of Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch’s plan for “blank slate” reform of the individual income tax. But when it comes to the corporate income tax, this approach to reform could be a great opportunity – if it is used to raise substantial revenues.

The corporate income tax is one of the most progressive pieces of our tax code, with the vast majority of the tax borne by wealthy investors. But over the last 50 years, corporate taxes have declined as a share of federal revenues, reducing the progressivity of the tax code overall. The statutory top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but the code is so riddled with loopholes and special preferences that corporations now pay an average effective tax rate of 12.6 percent — less than many middle class families.

That means that “blank slate” tax reform that wiped out all corporate tax expenditures – the loopholes and special breaks that allow companies to avoid the statutory tax rate – could raise a lot of revenue very progressively while both enhancing efficiency and protecting middle-class families from tax increases and damaging spending cuts. In fact, just repealing one large tax expenditure known as “deferral,” the provision that allows companies like Apple to use offshore subsidiaries to classify their profits as “foreign” and indefinitely avoid U.S. taxes, would raise more than half of the revenue called for in the Senate Budget Resolution.

Yet instead, corporate lobbyists are lining up to tell Congress that corporate reform should be “revenue neutral.” They say the U.S. should lock in the low effective rates corporations have achieved through past lobbying and accounting games, and that even as we are kicking kids off head start and furloughing nurses for returning veterans, corporations should not be asked to contribute any more to our nation’s fiscal needs. Worse, multinationals are pushing for a so-called “territorial” tax system, under which they would never owe tax on any profits they could characterize as overseas. This would magnify the problems created by deferral and potentially lead to even more erosion of the corporate tax base in the future.
(more)
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wiping The Corporate Tax Code Clean (of tax loopholes) Could Raise Money And Help The Middle Class (Original Post) Bill USA Jul 2013 OP
Of course it could, elleng Jul 2013 #1
let's just lay back & sink into apathy? and stop pointing out stupid policies? No thanks. Bill USA Jul 2013 #11
Are you suggesting that I was suggesting we just lay back, elleng Jul 2013 #12
not suggesting. Your comment #1 seemed steeped in ennui. Bill USA Jul 2013 #13
Dissatisfaction, yes, elleng Jul 2013 #14
I have my doubts that counselling despair will help get anything accomplished. I would prefer those Bill USA Jul 2013 #17
You would not be correct. westerebus Jul 2013 #22
cmnt #1 does not need to be based on an assessment of corruption in politcal system.. Bill USA Jul 2013 #27
It is a broken system. westerebus Jul 2013 #29
"Blaming the repubs does not set the Democratic Party on a course to improve the position of the.." Bill USA Jul 2013 #30
saying it's a broken system is counseling giving up. NOw, the GOP's pushing Voter Id laws since the Bill USA Jul 2013 #31
Good Luck With The 1% Giving Up Their Tax Breaks cantbeserious Jul 2013 #2
Congress is the one percent. xtraxritical Jul 2013 #4
The Oligarchs Own The Politicians And Control The System For Their Benefit cantbeserious Jul 2013 #5
Would love to believe it could happen, but lately, even the dog and pony shows are mbperrin Jul 2013 #3
Does any one understand that corporations are 100% owned by golfguru Jul 2013 #6
I have heard that reasoning on corporate taxes many times, I don't agree. stevebreeze Jul 2013 #7
Oh man..your questions are so darn easy to answer.... golfguru Jul 2013 #8
U.S. corporations taxed lower than those based in other Developed countries - that is talking stated Bill USA Jul 2013 #9
I concur that no industry group should receive tax breaks golfguru Jul 2013 #15
Me too, except for the clean energy industry PsychoBunny Jul 2013 #18
Once you start on that gravy train golfguru Jul 2013 #19
According to the U.S. Treasury, 82% of taxes that are paid by corps r passed to stockholders Bill USA Jul 2013 #10
Which means the lowly 401-k bloke golfguru Jul 2013 #16
the average 'joe' holds about ~5% of the nations financial wealth while top 20% holds ~95% Bill USA Jul 2013 #20
That sounds like bad stats golfguru Jul 2013 #21
I gave you the link to the article which lists references to sources. You really should check it out Bill USA Jul 2013 #23
I tend to believe what I see in real life over golfguru Jul 2013 #24
LOL. this is the kind of thing that Conservative idiots like to say. I guess since you rely on Bill USA Jul 2013 #25
I did'nt trust the "SCIENTIFIC" poll saying Romney to win either n/t golfguru Jul 2013 #28
you are not talking about nate silver obviously Bill USA Jul 2013 #32
biased polls didn't fool anybody but the GOPers and their M$M Toadies. Bill USA Jul 2013 #33
Stay away. JEFF9K Jul 2013 #26

elleng

(131,227 posts)
12. Are you suggesting that I was suggesting we just lay back,
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 05:53 PM
Jul 2013

and accept the status quo without a word? If so, you are mistaken.

We have A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK TO DO, in many spheres.

elleng

(131,227 posts)
14. Dissatisfaction, yes,
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 06:41 PM
Jul 2013

not apathetic, but I have little hope that, without huge and difficult efforts, the problem will be addressed.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
17. I have my doubts that counselling despair will help get anything accomplished. I would prefer those
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 05:42 PM
Jul 2013

who are weary and feel too weary to attempt the task, to keep their defeatism to themselves.

I think such talk is particularly out of place (unwelcome?) on this sort of web-site.

westerebus

(2,976 posts)
22. You would not be correct.
Sun Jul 21, 2013, 09:13 PM
Jul 2013

An assessment of the current degree of corruption on Capitol Hill is not counseling despair.

ymmv

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
27. cmnt #1 does not need to be based on an assessment of corruption in politcal system..
Tue Jul 23, 2013, 07:16 PM
Jul 2013

[font size="3"] the comment could be based on an assessment of the current kind of politics practiced by the Republican party.[/font]

First of all, the use of the term "corruption" is problematic as the Republican Party does not recognize any perversion of the political process or Government operation as "corruption". The word "corruption" has no meaning to them. Perverting the operations of the Government to serve their own purposes just seems like common sense to them - Standard Operating Procedure. The idea of "privatizing" all Government functions (still a GOP work in progress) is really just intended to reestablish a system of political patronage, whereby they will compensate (with contracts) those who financed their efforts in subverting the last election. And with the "Citizens United" decree, elections have been openly commericialized - our Government up for sale.


The "K-Street Project" was a program whereby the GOP planned to effectively turn lobbyists into an arm of the Republican Party.

The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. It has been criticized as being part of a "coziness" between the GOP and large corporations which has allegedly allowed business to rewrite government regulations affecting their own industries in some cases (see Dick Cheney energy task force).

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, "he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership."[1]
(more)



The GOP is practicing what I call a "burn down the village" kind of politics whereby they fight the Democrats at anything constructive they try to do and them blame the "Government" for things not getting done. Mitch McConnell, in 2010 said the primary objective of the Republican Party is to "make Obama a one term president". Since Obama's election in 2008 the Republicans have fought every effort that Obama and the Dems have made to rebuild the economy from the great damage done by the Republicans' Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster. Trickle Down, Supply-Side Econocomics had been shown incontrovertably by the Bush administration to be a completely fraudulent economic philosophy (so claimed) and the Republicans couldn't let the Democrats come in and repair the economy too quickly so they sabotaged every effort Obama and the Democrats made to rebuild our economy in tatters thanks to Supply Side Prosperity. The livelihoods of millions of Americans have become the collateral damage in their war on Obama and the Democrats.

An excellent early article on the GOP's new politics of destruction was written by Peter Beinart in Time magazine: "Why Washington is Tied Up in Knots"
(emphases my own)
All that changed when Bill Clinton took office. With the GOP no longer controlling the White House, a new breed of aggressive Republicans — men like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and Trent Lott — hit on a strategy for discrediting Clinton: discredit government. Rhetorically, they derided Washington as ineffective and conflict-ridden, and through their actions they guaranteed it. Their greatest weapon was the filibuster, which forced Democrats to muster 60 votes to get legislation through the Senate. Historically, filibustering had been rare. From the birth of the Republic until the Civil War, the Senate witnessed about one filibuster per decade. As late as the 1960s, Senators filibustered less than 10% of major legislation. But in the '70s, the filibuster rule changed: Senators no longer needed to camp out on the Senate floor all night, reading from Grandma's recipe book. Merely declaring their intention to filibuster derailed any bill that lacked 60 votes.

In the Clinton years, Senate Republicans began a kind of permanent filibuster. "Whereas the filibusters of the past were mainly the weapon of last resort," scholars Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky noted in 1997, "now filibusters are a part of daily life." For a while, the remaining GOP moderates cried foul and joined with Democrats to break filibusters on things like campaign finance and voter registration. But in doing so, the moderates helped doom themselves. After moderates broke a 1993 filibuster on campaign finance, GOP conservatives publicly accused them of "stabbing us in the back." Their pictures were taken off the wall at the offices of the Republican Senate campaign committee. "What do these so-called moderates have in common?" conservative bigwig Grover Norquist would later declare. "They're 70 years old. They're not running again. They're gonna be dead soon. So while they're annoying, within the Republican Party our problems are dying."

~~
~~

With these acts of legislative sabotage, Republicans tapped into a deep truth about the American people: they hate political squabbling, and they take out their anger on whoever is in charge. So when the Gingrich Republicans carried out a virtual sit-down strike during Clinton's first two years, the public mood turned nasty. By 1994, trust in government was at an all-time low, which suited the Republicans fine, since their major line of attack against Clinton's health care plan was that it would empower government. Clintoncare collapsed, Democrats lost Congress, and Republicans learned the secrets of vicious-circle politics: When the parties are polarized, it's easy to keep anything from getting done. When nothing gets done, people turn against government. When you're the party out of power and the party that reviles government, you win.

The Endless Filibuster

All this, it turns out, was a mere warm-up for the Obama years. On the surface, it appeared that Obama took office in a stronger position than Clinton had, since Democrats boasted more seats in the Senate. But in their jubilation, Democrats forgot something crucial: vicious-circle politics thrives on polarization. As the GOP caucus in the Senate shrank, it also hardened. Early on, the White House managed to persuade three Republicans to break a filibuster of its stimulus plan. But one of those Republicans, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter — under assault for his vote and facing a right-wing primary challenge — switched parties. That meant that of the six Senate Republicans with the most moderate voting records in 2007, only two were still in the Senate, and in the party, by '09. The Wednesday lunch club had ceased to exist. And the fewer Republican moderates there were, the more dangerous it was for any of them to cut deals across the aisle.

In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation, even more than during the Clinton years. [font color="red"]GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster of a deficit-reduction commission that he himself had demanded[/font]. The Obama White House spent months trying to lure the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, Chuck Grassley, into supporting a deal on health care reform and gave his staff a major role in crafting the bill. But GOP officials back home began threatening to run a primary challenger against the Iowa Senator. By late summer, Grassley wasn't just inching away from reform; he was implying that Obamacare would euthanize Grandma.
(more)


I can understand anybody becoming frustrated and having doubts that anything we do can work. That is what the Republicans are counting on. But we just cannot give up. That's why I have been posting on this site for some time about cases of sabotage of the democratic process and perversion of government processes. Moreover I have recommended and commented favorably on posts by others (including by the individual who posted cmt #1) that have pointed out such political machinations. But documenting specific cases of irresponsible political actions or perversion of the governments functions is not the same as making a sweeping statement that nothing we do will work to improve the situation- because there is NO CHANCE that it will work . This I would cite is to counsel despair and giving up. That is not what this site is about.

westerebus

(2,976 posts)
29. It is a broken system.
Wed Jul 24, 2013, 08:39 AM
Jul 2013

It has been for some time.

It will not self repair when its own self interests lie in keeping the system as is. Corrupt.

Blaming the repubs does not set the Democratic Party on a course to improve the position of the American people who believe in the democratic principles of due process, equal treatment, expanding the common good, and support of the working man/woman to their fair share of the economic success this nation enjoys due to their labor, intelligence and sacrifice.

No, I do not expect that from the rebups.

I had thought that this was what this site is about.



Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
30. "Blaming the repubs does not set the Democratic Party on a course to improve the position of the.."
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 05:04 PM
Jul 2013

IF that's ALL THEY WERE DOING, you'd have a point.

I am not saying that everything the Dems or Obama have done, they have gone about in what I consider to be the right way. I have many points upon which I disagree with President Obama and other Democrats on what to do or how to go about accomplishing it. But they have been doing more than just 'blaming the Repugnants"...

... by the way, pointing out those who are working to undermine the Democratic process and sabotaging efforts of the Legislature to get something accomplished or undermining the efforts of the executive branch to act upon laws passed by the Congress is the responsible action I would expect of any citizen. To shut up and NOT say anything about such destructive behavior would be irresponsible and reprehensible.

But the Democrats have done more than that. They have tried to get numerous jobs bills through Congress but the GOP, determined to prevent Obama and the Dems from repairing the economy from the GOP's Supply-Side disaster have filibustered virtually all of them:


Without GOP Unemployment would be under 6% - Daily KOS, July 8, 2012

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/08/1107585/-Without-GOP-Unemployment-would-be-under-6#

(emphases my own)


The GOP has been on an economic wrecking mission ever since the election of Barack Obama - indeed we now know that leading Republican strategists and legislators met and planned a course of economic sabotage and complete obstruction on Obama's very first day in office.

This obstruction has had a huge price - a deliberate price that the GOP is betting the American people will blame on President Obama.
GOP obstruction did not prevent the passage of ARRA - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - popularly know as "The Stimulus" bill of 2009 during the height of the economic disaster as the economy was falling off a cliff - the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that ARRA has saved up to 3 million jobs. But nearly every economic measure since then has been blocked by GOP obstruction, filibusters and brinksmanship.

What has been the result of GOP obstruction?

It is hard to quantify what constant obstruction has cost - you could tally up estimates of every measure that came along, but not all would have passed - nor even been introduced if previous measures had been adopted that obviated their need. But we can look at just two big examples and get a minimal measure of the human cost to American citizens of a deliberate policy to destroy the economy in order to bring down the president; 1) austerity, and 2) obstruction of the 2011 American Jobs Act. Taking just those into account, the unemployment rate would be under 6% were it not for deliberate GOP wrecking.

Austerity is madness - many in the GOP actually believe that austerity during an economic downturn is the right thing to do - even 'socialist' Europe was convinced of this - although most realize it is not true, and has no history of success - even Mitt Romney unwittingly admitted as much in an unguarded moment. But that hasn't stopped savage austerity on the state and local level - which has cost over 600,000 public sector jobs so far.
(more)



Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1% - Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2012

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/
(emphases my own)

One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

But the survey of households that the unemployment rate is based on suggests the government job cuts have been much, much worse.

In April the household survey showed that that there were 442,000 fewer people working in government than in March. The household survey has a much smaller sample size than the establishment survey, and so is prone to volatility, but the magnitude of the drop is striking: It marks the largest decline on both an absolute and a percentage basis on record going back to 1948. Moreover, the household survey has consistently showed bigger drops in government employment than the establishment survey has.
(more)



.. as I said, Democrats have been doing more that rightfully criticizing Republicans (though not nearly loudly enough). they have been trying to get legislation passed to help jumpt start the recovery and rebuild a stronger economy. The excerpt below shows a partial list of legislation (I set them in bold) proposed by Democrats but filibustered by the Republicans...


Republicans Filibuster Everything, Romney Blames Obama for Not Working With Congress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-filibuster-ev_b_2018663.html
(emphases my own)

And so the Republicans proceeded to rack up the highest number of filibusters in American history. During the president's first two years in office, the 111th Congress, there were 137 cloture motions filed to end Republican filibusters. During the president's second two years, the 112th Congress, there were 109 motions filed to end Republican filibusters and we still have a few more months to go. 246 total cloture motions. Compare this to George W. Bush's first term when there were a total of 133 cloture motions filed. Not even a handful of "sensible" Republicans had the guts to break ranks and vote with the Democrats. Meanwhile, on the House side, the Republican majority has voted in near-lockstep against almost everything.

What bills have the Republicans filibustered? To name a few:

H.R. 12 - Paycheck Fairness Act
H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act
H.R. 466 - Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
H.R. 515 - Radioactive Import Deterrence Act
H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act
H.R. 577 - Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 626 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
H.R. 1029 - Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act
H.R. 1171 - Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act
H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act
H.R.5281 -- DREAM Act
S.3985 -- Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
S.3816 -- Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
S.3369 -- A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
S.2237 -- Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
S.2343 -- Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act
S.1660 -- American Jobs Act of 2011
S.3457 -- Veterans Jobs Corps Act

What else?

Here's an astonishing one. The Republicans filibustered the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act -- basically, healthcare for 9/11 heroes. Every Republican senator voted to filibuster this bill. I suppose the Republicans are only interested in 9/11 heroes when they're used as political props.


On the House side, every single Republican, including Paul Ryan, voted against the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which forces Congress to pay for new legislation through either budget cuts or revenue increases.
(more)


as you can see, President Obama and the Democrats have been doing a lot more than blaming the Republicans. But they haven't been able to get very far with anything as the Republlicans determined on the day of Obama's innauguration that they would fight and fillibuster everything Obama would try to do..

I didn't 'get' what you meant when you said: "I had thought that this was what this site is about." .. did you mean 'not expecting that (working for the average American) from the Repubs'? ??

[font size="3"] I don't think this site is about preaching the system is broken and therefor there is no point in trying to do anything to about it, or in identifying and discussing things which need to be improved or changed. I would submit that "Identifying and discussing things which need to be improved or changed" as well as working together to debunk Republican Disinformation/Propaganda and fight Republican Demagoguery... is what this site is all about.[/font]

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
31. saying it's a broken system is counseling giving up. NOw, the GOP's pushing Voter Id laws since the
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 05:34 PM
Jul 2013

Roberts SC struck down a key part of the voting rights act is certainly a 'downer', to site that as an example. But that is no excuse for saying:

"Oh well, its a broken system let's not even do anything to fix it. LEt's not fight the GOP's efforts to undermine Democracy in America".

That's just how the degerenarate Republicans want us to react. In fact, if I was Republican operative trying to undermine Democrats' resolve to fight for democracy against all the insidious efforts of the Republicans to kill it, I guess that's what I would say: "Oh, the systems broken. Might as well just give up the fight."

We have to continue the fight. THAT is what this site is all about.

With Voting Rights Act Out, States Push Voter ID Laws
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/


Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the law requiring nine states to submit voting law changes to the federal government for pre-clearance, five* are already moving ahead with voter ID laws, some of which had already been rejected as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.

The spate of new and potentially discriminatory laws is exactly why proponents of the Voting Rights Act argued that Section 4, the pre-clearance requirement, should remain in place.

Before 1965, when the law was first passed, state and local governments came up with ever-inventive ways to keep blacks from voting, forcing the federal government to launch countless legal battles. When Texas was prohibited from holding all-white primaries in 1927, for example, it passed a new law to allow the party leadership to decide who could vote. They chose an all-white primary.

“Early attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her fierce dissent of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
(more)



mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
3. Would love to believe it could happen, but lately, even the dog and pony shows are
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 06:39 PM
Jul 2013

just descriptions, not actual shows.

Congress doesn't respect us enough to tell us a plausible lie anymore.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
6. Does any one understand that corporations are 100% owned by
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:53 PM
Jul 2013

individuals at the end of the food chain? For example Bill Gates owns a huge chunk of Microsoft corporation via shares owned. If MSFT taxes are increased, every one who buys Microsoft products will pay more, because MSFT is not in the business to lose money.

The individuals who get most benefit from MSFT such as the CEO and other executives and large stock holders should be taxed at higher rates, not the corporation itself because corporate taxes are regressive and paid by every lowly consumer, and stock holder who has a few shares in his/her 401-k or private portfolio.

stevebreeze

(1,877 posts)
7. I have heard that reasoning on corporate taxes many times, I don't agree.
Sun Jul 7, 2013, 10:37 PM
Jul 2013

First if corporations could just raise prices to cover the additional taxes why don't they raise prices now? They simply don't have that kind of power. If taxes on corporations could be just passed on to the consumer corporations would not care what their level of taxation was. Corporations spend millions fighting taxes through campaign donations and lobbyists.
I do agree entirely that executives and other stock holder should pay a much greater share then they currently do.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
8. Oh man..your questions are so darn easy to answer....
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:11 AM
Jul 2013

Corporations can't raise price willy nilly because of C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N!
But when corporate taxes are raised across the board, they can raise prices
in concert without affecting competition. Which is why monopolies are the
worst form of capitalism. They have no competition and are free to operate
inefficiently, and corruptly.

The reason corporations fight higher taxes is because it puts them at distinct
disadvantage with foreign corporations. Another reason is as prices are
raised on goods and services, it dampens sales volume and growth.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
9. U.S. corporations taxed lower than those based in other Developed countries - that is talking stated
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 05:34 PM
Jul 2013

tax rates.

I'll get to actual paid taxes in a moment.

Note that tax breaks favor some industries over others. E.g. the oil industry enjoys considerable tax advantages that others do not.

According to the U.S. Treasury, taxes are not passed onto customers through higher prices, but are born mostly by capital (i.e. stockholders) 82% and 18% by labor (in lower wages). So most of the tax burden, light as it is, born by corporations is passed onto the stockholders in reduced profits. But the tax burden (i.e. the stated tax rates is in the U.S. is among the lowest in the developed world.

First, stated tax rates:

GRAPH: Contrary To GOP Claims, U.S. Has Second Lowest Corporate Taxes In The Developed World

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/?mobile=nc


During negotiations regarding raising the nation’s debt limit, congressional Republicans have defended tax loopholes for corporations, claiming that America has a high corporate tax rate that is stifling economic growth and job creation. But the Center for Tax Justice (CTJ) has crunched the most recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Census Bureau, and finds that “the U.S. is already one of the least taxed countries for corporations in the developed world.”

As a share of GDP, the U.S. had the second lowest tax rate, behind only Iceland. This statistic flips on its head the often-repeated Republican charge that America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (which is only true on paper). In 2009, U.S. corporate taxes had fallen to only 1.3 percent of GDP, from 4 percent in 1965.



Conservatives love to point out that other OECD countries have lowered their corporate tax rates in recent years, but they conveniently ignore that “these countries have also closed corporate tax loopholes while the U.S. has expanded them.” As CAP Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has noted, the U.S. is actually a very low-tax country across the board.

Recently, conservative commentator Bill Kristol chastised his own party for pretending that lowering the corporate tax rate is a cure-all for America’s economic woes. On Fox News Sunday, he interrupted a panelist who again tried to assert the U.S. is suffering from a high corporate tax rate: “Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.”
(more)


[font size="+1"]But now, let's get down to reality, the taxes really paid by corporations after various tax breaks[/font] (built into the tax code due to the efforts of corporate lobbyists (who, when the GOP runs Congress, actually write the laws themselves). Some tax breaks make economic good sense, but some are just in there as payoffs for political financial support.


Corporate Tax Dodgers Pay To Keep Loopholes Open
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/corporate-tax-dodgers-loopholes_n_1368420.html

It's one of the age-old Washington mind-benders: How is it possible that more than two dozen major U.S. companies post enormous profits and pay no taxes?

A report released Wednesday offers one possible explanation: In addition to spending nearly $500 million lobbying in a recent three-year period, those companies spread $41 million to the political campaigns of their friends in Congress.

And while most in Congress got a taste, the lion's share of campaign contributions went to a small group of congressional leaders in positions to stop any proposal to close a corporate tax loophole.

The report, "Loopholes for Sale," is from the U.S. PIRG consumer group and Citizens for Tax Justice, both favoring increased corporate taxation.

[div style="width:100%" "class="excerpt"]

(more)


ALSO SEE: Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers, 2008-2010: NEW REPORT: 280 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Shelter Half Their Profits from Taxes.
http://ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/


...most of the tax burden that is born by corporations is passed on to the stockholders, the owners, as it should be. But it does not make any sense for corporations to pay less than middle class people - and it certainly doesn't make sense for some corporations to pay zero or negative taxes.


 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
15. I concur that no industry group should receive tax breaks
Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:12 PM
Jul 2013

Corporate taxes should be zero so that the most efficient will prosper and the stupid corporations will go broke. Currently corporations get to carry forward losses and thus pay less taxes when profitable.

Like I said before, since individuals own all corporations and profit from them as highly paid executives, the least regressive taxation is when paid by individuals based on their income level.

I had an executive position for 10 years with a medium size corporation. We raised prices of our products enough to make a profit after paying all expenses including corporate taxes. If taxes went up, we raised prices again until we could make a decent ROI.

Our products were used to manufacture consumer goods which means the consumers paid our taxes at the end of food chain. The taxes paid left less money to pay all employees. Thus the taxes affected even the lowest paid employee.

Again it is best to tax the individual high earners instead of affecting every lowly person associated with the corporation, employees & stockholders.

 

PsychoBunny

(86 posts)
18. Me too, except for the clean energy industry
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 01:05 PM
Jul 2013

The green companies need tax incentives to spur their growth and make up for past subsidies for the fossil fuel companies.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
19. Once you start on that gravy train
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:33 PM
Jul 2013

then all sorts of lobbyists overwhelm the politicians. You want green energy, another person wants breaks for agriculture, next one wants it for oil drilling.

Where does it all stop? It is best to get politicians out of the game. I agree with you that my personal choice is also to find alternatives to fossil fuels. I would prefer government spend on research which can then be used by any American corporation. Let the most efficient American corporation benefit from that research available to all and prosper and the stupid corporation expire and go bankrupt. That is the best approach instead of picking winners and losers by politicians.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
10. According to the U.S. Treasury, 82% of taxes that are paid by corps r passed to stockholders
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 05:41 PM
Jul 2013

.. with 18% passed on to labor.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-T2012-05-Distributing-the-Corporate-Income-Tax-Methodology-May-2012.pdf

In 2008, the Office of Tax Analysis (OTA), U.S. Department of the Treasury revised its incidence assumption for the corporate income tax. Prior to 2008, OTA assumed the corporate income tax was borne entirely by all (positive) capital income.1 Currently, OTA assumes the share of the corporate income tax that represents a tax on supernormal returns is borne by supernormal capital income; the share of the corporate income tax that represents cash flow has no burden in the long run; and the remainder of the corporate income tax is borne equally by labor and positive normal capital income. [font size="3"]In the final analysis the new methodology assumes 82 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by supernormal or normal capital income and 18 percent is borne by labor.[/font]


 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
16. Which means the lowly 401-k bloke
Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:21 PM
Jul 2013

pays the burden along with the multi-millionaire share holder.
How disgustingly regressive!

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
20. the average 'joe' holds about ~5% of the nations financial wealth while top 20% holds ~95%
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 02:47 PM
Jul 2013

Last edited Sat Jul 20, 2013, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I didn't see your comment till just today. Sorry I missed it as it is an egregrous distortion of reality - that the average person is hurt by taxes impacting the wealth holders in the country.

The average person (say people making less than $200,000 a year) only holds (not counting his house) about 4.7% of the nations financial wealth.

About 95% of the nations financial wealth is held by those with a mean household income of $226,200 (2010 dollars) and above.


See: Who Rules (Owns) America?



So, the average person, represented by the bottom 80% (in terms of annual income) of the population is hardly impacted by Corporate income taxes passed mostly along to capital holders.

Our income tax code is definitely regressive but not due to the very light income tax treatment given corporations.

In fact, if corporations actually paid their fair share, the tax code would become less regressive which would be good for the economy because the 80% of the population would have more money in their pockets (assuming the tax burden on them was reduced as it was properly levied more on the corporations) which they would largely spend (they have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the wealthy (top 20%). This increased demand for goods and services would produce greater sales for businesses, who would then hire more people to meet the demand for goods and services. With more people working, there would be more demand and some more hiring. The businesses would see increased revenues and income, there would be more good business opportunities for the wealthy to invest in (thus they would feel less need to cast about for gimmiks - like Synthetic CDOs) and the economy would grow. This is how to grow an economy. Too much concentration of wealth in too few hands leads to moribund demand and less sales growth for businesses and less jobs being added for those who are looking for work.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
21. That sounds like bad stats
Sun Jul 21, 2013, 08:44 PM
Jul 2013

Every one of my co-workers in an outfit of 5000 employees (Argonne National Labs) had a 403-b retirement plan and 90% of employees made middle class to higher middle class wages. Workers in my own group who did computer aided drafting making 30-35 dollars per hour had several hundred thousand dollars in their retirement plans almost all of it stocks.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
23. I gave you the link to the article which lists references to sources. You really should check it out
Mon Jul 22, 2013, 08:56 PM
Jul 2013

a sampling of 5000 doesn't really compare to the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources listed at the end of the article. If you think this suffices as a representative sample, you really need to go back and take a beginning statistics course and this time pay attention.

Here is the article (again): Who Owns America

check out references.


 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
24. I tend to believe what I see in real life over
Tue Jul 23, 2013, 12:25 AM
Jul 2013

some bogus surveys.
Figures do not lie but liars figure.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
25. LOL. this is the kind of thing that Conservative idiots like to say. I guess since you rely on
Tue Jul 23, 2013, 04:38 PM
Jul 2013

personal experience over the inferences drawn on scientificly based, empirical studies, you think the World is 'obviously' FLAT. You can't figure out how the sun manages to orbit the Earth every 24 hours.

Calling universally relied upon data sources such as the U.S. Census and CIA World Factbook, to name a couple sources used in the article I referenced, decidedly puts you in a Flat Earth Society realm. I must admit, not too many people would come out and admit to refusing to accept such widely accepted, empirically based data sources and call them "bogus".

Enjoy your Stone-Age mentality in a 21st century World. Unfortunately, ignorance is not blissfull.


Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
33. biased polls didn't fool anybody but the GOPers and their M$M Toadies.
Sat Jul 27, 2013, 04:17 PM
Jul 2013

The Repugnants know that their base likes to be told what they think. They kept chanting the bullshit that Romney would win. If there is ONE thing the GOP believe in (GOPers are soulless cynics, who do believe in the corruptibility of most people) it is the principle of the "Big Lie". they biased their sampling selections to over-weight non-critical thinkers (or to be more frank, the non-thinkers) so they could get the result they wanted. All the GOP's M$M toadies fell in line with biased samples and got the desired result too.

Check out : How Pundits Are Explaining Their Totally Wrong Election Predictions
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/how-pundits-are-explaining-their-totally-wrong-election-predictions/58796/

For a review of all the elections predictions. The way they fell out for predicting who would win is:

Conservative/GOP leaning: 69% Wrong, 31% Right;
Liberal/Democratic leaning: 100% Right;
Non-aligned: 86% Right;, 14% Wrong;

Clearly, the GOP/Conservative "polls" and those of the GOP toadies in M$M were making predictions using biased samplings to come up with the "correct" result they wanted. They overweighted their samples to emphasize the non-critical thinkers (or to be more to the point: the non thinkers). They know their base and how much they like to be told what they 'think', how much the are followers. IF there is one thing the GOPers/Conservatives do believe in (and they don't believe in much) it's the principle of the "Big Lie". They know how many (most?) people are subject to suggestion and like to be lead. So, they had produced "poll" results that were really just public relations products meant to heard the followers in their candidates direction. They were counting on creating some momentum for Romoney.

Oh yeah, there was something else that fed their confidence. They were counting on their voter suppression efforts in Ohio and elsewhere to keep down Democratic votes. The Ohio secretary of state bragged he would deliver Ohio for Romoney.

Voter Suppression Efforts instilled confidence in GOPers

see: Ohio Secretary of State Accused of installing Suspicious Software on Voting Machines

.. Pennsylvania House, Majority Leader Turzai proclaimed: Pennsylvania Republican: Voter ID Laws Are ‘Gonna Allow Governor Romney To Win’


GOP's push to suppress vote threatens democracy - CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/hogue-voter-suppression



One day before the election, tensions are running high and poll numbers are being crunched every few hours. Nowhere is this truer than in Ohio -- the pathway to victory. So there was a collective gasp Friday when a last-minute directive from Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, threatened to invalidate a number of provisional ballots.

When the fate of the nation could hinge on a handful of votes, arcane state rules and local politicians' motives take on a new urgency.

Earlier last week the Obama campaign complained to Wisconsin's attorney general about what it said was "willful misrepresentation" by the Romney campaign in the materials used to train Election Day poll watchers. At issue was whether people in Wisconsin with felony convictions could vote. (They can, once they complete their sentences, but the Romney documents had said they can't.) Given that this fact can be Googled in less than 10 seconds, one must conclude the Romney campaign was either grossly ignorant of election law or intentionally deceiving volunteers in an effort to swing the vote.
(more)



Specifically re polling: Among the uninitated, it is believed the polls each give a 'point' estimate. This of course, is not the case. All the polls actually have a confidence interval around a mid-point estimate. The mid-point (popular vote, electoral college vote tied to the state by state popular vote mid-point) is what is repeated by M$M. If you look at the ranges of votes predicted by each of the forecasted votes you would find the final vote tally (popular votes) fell within the range most predicted - although the prediction of the winner was obviously very poor on the part of the GOP/Conservative 'pollsters' for rreasons stated above.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Wiping The Corporate Tax ...